27 Jul 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasHow would I know if it was truly God or simply a hallucination? I'll tell you how:
[b]In other words, it is you who assumes the truth of that which is not in evidence, not me. I await the evidence and haven't seen any yet.
Here are few questions to ponder:
(1) If you haven't yet objectively examined the evidence presented, then how can you justify rejecting it?
(2) If scripture isn't sufficient evidence for you, then what ...[text shortened]... fore you in blazing glory, how would you know if it was truly God or simply a hallucination?[/b]
If and only if God or Jesus or my dog simon acting as agent for the same brings my son Alex back to life, whole, well, and as he was before he went off his medications, put a .38 in his mouth and fired -- that's all the proof I'd need..
That would do it.
The fact that it isn't going to happen, no matter what you say, is quite enough, together with what Western religions preach about suicide, to make all the "faith" and "truth" and talk about "divintiy" disgust me.
I can face the reality of the fact that Alex is dead. You want to dispute that? I'm unveiling his tombstone next week.
Now tell me I don't know anything except by faith.
Now tell me I don't know what is real and what is not.
I can face the fact he's dead and why he's dead and I can go on with life and do good things for reasons that are entirely up to me because I can choose for myself to make my life meaningful and conduct myself with dignity and grace (if not here) even in the face of severe suffering. I have more trouble doing that in the face of severe idiocy and insistent nonsense.
I don't need your psychological crutch of faith and divinity and so forth because it has nothing to do with reality -- he's dead and he's not coming back.
Now deal with that in a rational way, why don't you.
You got a quotation out of scripture that would do me or my son any good whatsoever?
I can tell you right now: put a sock in it. I don't suffer fools or foolishness gladly.
You want to talk about life experience in relation to faith?
Are you qualified to even come close to doing that?
C'mon all you sanctimonious twits, all this Christianity, Judaism, etc. is just tradition people lean on - it serves about as well as singing happy birthday -- something I can't do for Alex anymore and have it mean anything to him. Grow up, already, there ain't no Santa Clause and life has no escape clause, either, Bible or no.
And I've no use for it -- so understand, I don't live or reason in a bottle -- I'm out here fighting incurable debilitating disease in myself, dealing with my wife's cancer, and facing up to the fact my son is dead and gone.
Still I show up for work every day and I fight to protect public health and the environment because I think that matters. Most of the time I strive to be much more compassionate and forgiving than I'm able to be at the moment.
But I got the unveiling on my mind and the anniversary of his death ... not a good time of year for the rest of my days. What used to be my favorite month of the year -- August -- is now something else entirely.
What you have to say and what the Bible has to say, with the possible exception of the Book of Ecclesiastes, is worse than vanity -- it is intellectually and morally bankrupt as far as I'm concerned.
27 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999Why bother with you? I'm not being rude, you're just insignificant.
LOL .. youre too lame to insult me for yourself ?
Come on ... give it a shot.
True, you are no longer beneath my contempt. You are about as smart as bait.
Your head is so far up your butt that you need a piece of Plexiglas installed in your navel just to see where you're going. You are a miracle of nature; you exhibit an IQ of 2 and still you write.
27 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ScriabinIm not insignificant because you are bothering with me and taking the trouble to reply.
Why bother with you? I'm not being rude, you're just insignificant.
True, you are no longer beneath my contempt. You are about as smart as bait.
Your head is so far up your butt that you need a piece of Plexiglas installed in your navel just to see where you're going. You are a miracle of nature; you exhibit an IQ of 2 and still you write.
Where do you think you got your IQ of 185 ? From yourself.. you did it? You made yourself smart? Thats cool ... tell me how you did it so maybe I can try it and rise above my IQ of 2. There must be something I did not do right ..... correct ?
27 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by ScriabinYou want to talk about life experience in relation to faith? Are you qualified to even come close to doing that?
How would I know if it was truly God or simply a hallucination? I'll tell you how:
If and only if God or Jesus or my dog simon acting as agent for the same brings my son Alex back to life, whole, well, and as he was before he went off his medications, put a .38 in his mouth and fired -- that's all the proof I'd need..
That would do it.
The fact it is intellectually and morally bankrupt as far as I'm concerned.
No, because I have no life experiences.
All is vanity? Yes, it is. As well as your self-pity and misery. Do you think you are the only person here who has suffered? Do you think suffering somehow qualifies you to declare whether God exists or not? Vanity, vanity, vanity...
What you have to say and what the Bible has to say, with the possible exception of the Book of Ecclesiastes, is worse than vanity -- it is intellectually and morally bankrupt as far as I'm concerned.
"Truly the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil; madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. But for him who is joined to all the living there is hope, for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 9:3-6).
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether good or evil" (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).
27 Jul 08
Originally posted by Conrau KYes, tradition is valuable in settling these controversies. But the divinity of Christ isn't something people just "made up". Where do you think they got the idea? From scripture! Just because some people fell into error (and still do) concerning Christ's divinity, doesn't mean the Bible isn't quite plain about it. I can think of several passages off the top of my head that leave no doubt.
The scriptures are ambivalent on the subject of the divinity of Christ; Jesus shows himself subordinate to the Father and of limited knowledge; he is never referred to explicitly as God. Scripture is inconclusive and the early church was divided on the controversy. It was not until the fourth century and the popularity of Arianism and Ebionitism that the Ch ...[text shortened]... Without tradition (and the ecumenical councils), there is no way to settle these controversies.
"The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word," (Heb. 1:3, NIV).
Now that's not something you say about a mere mortal! 😀
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
27 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasActually, scripture was not the source of the idea; it was the patristic writings. The Council of Nicaea which defined the doctrine of Christ's divinity conducte a more philosophical inquiry into whether the Father and Son were of the same substance, rather than engage in scriptural exegesis. On the subject, the scriptures are ambiguous: some parts lend themselves to the divinity of Christ; some do not.
Yes, tradition is valuable in settling these controversies. But the divinity of Christ isn't something people just "made up". Where do you think they got the idea? From scripture! Just because some people fell into error (and still do) concerning Christ's divinity, doesn't mean the Bible isn't quite plain about it. I can think of several passages of ul word," (Heb. 1:3, NIV).
Now that's not something you say about a mere mortal! 😀
The scripture you cite is inconclusive on this issue; 'radiance' and 'representation' are not God in themselves. It sounds like the typical description of a prophet (remember Moses who face shined with the light of Mt. Sinai and was the go-between for God and the Israelites?)
27 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KOn the subject, the scriptures are ambiguous: some parts lend themselves to the divinity of Christ; some do not.
Actually, scripture was not the source of the idea; it was the patristic writings. The Council of Nicaea which defined the doctrine of Christ's divinity conducte a more philosophical inquiry into whether the Father and Son were of the same substance, rather than engage in scriptural exegesis. On the subject, the scriptures are ambiguous: some parts l face shined with the light of Mt. Sinai and was the go-between for God and the Israelites?)
Because Christ is also a man, of course. It's not that the scriptures are ambiguous.
Actually, scripture was not the source of the idea.
I respectfully disagree. The divinity of Christ is not something people pulled out of thin air. It is revealed in God's word and is substantiated by God's word.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
27 Jul 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasBecause Christ is also a man, of course. It's not that the scriptures are ambiguous.
[b]On the subject, the scriptures are ambiguous: some parts lend themselves to the divinity of Christ; some do not.
Because Christ is also a man, of course. It's not that the scriptures are ambiguous.
Actually, scripture was not the source of the idea.
I respectfully disagree. The divinity of Christ is not something people pulled out of thin air. It is revealed in God's word and is substantiated by God's word.[/b]
Yes, the scriptures really are ambiguous on this subject.
I respectfully disagree. The divinity of Christ is not something people pulled out of thin air. It is revealed in God's word and is substantiated by God's word.
Can you not see this as a false dichotomy? According to you, an idea is either "plucked out of the air" or "revealed by God's word". No other options?
27 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KYes, the scriptures really are ambiguous on this subject.
[b]Because Christ is also a man, of course. It's not that the scriptures are ambiguous.
Yes, the scriptures really are ambiguous on this subject.
I respectfully disagree. The divinity of Christ is not something people pulled out of thin air. It is revealed in God's word and is substantiated by God's word.
Can you not see this as a fa ...[text shortened]... n idea is either "plucked out of the air" or "revealed by God's word". No other options?[/b]
Are you serious?
If Jesus is not God, then why did Thomas call Jesus God in John 20:28? (Note, Thomas addresses Jesus specifically.) Why does God call Jesus God in Heb. 1:8? Why does John the apostle state that Jesus was the Word which was God that became flesh (John 1:1,14) ? Why is the phrase "Call upon the name of the LORD" (Hebrew, YHWH, i.e., Psalm 116:4) used only of God on the OT, and translated into the Greek in the LXX as "Call upon the name of the LORD (greek, kurios)," applied to Jesus in the NT (1 Cor. 1:2) If Jesus is not God in flesh? Why does the apostle John say that Jesus was, "...calling God His own Father, making Himself equal to God," (John 5:18) ? What did Jesus say that caused the Pharisees to claim that Jesus was making Himself out to be God? How was it possible for Jesus to know all things (John 21:17)? How can Jesus know all men (John 16:30) ? How can Jesus be everywhere (Matt. 28:20)? How can Jesus, the Christ, dwell in you (Col. 1:27)? How can Jesus be the exact representation of the Nature of God (Heb. 1:3)? How can Jesus be eternal (Micah 5:1-2) ? How can Jesus be the one who gives eternal life (John 10:27-28)? How can He be our only Lord and Master (Jude 4)?
How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) if there is only one God in existence (Isaiah 44:6-8; 45:5)? How can Jesus be called the Mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) and "God" also be called the Mighty God in Isaiah 10:21? How was Jesus able to raise Himself from the dead (John 2:19-21) ? How can Jesus create all things (Col. 1:16-17), yet it is God who created all things by Himself (Isaiah 44:24)? How can Jesus search the hearts and minds of the people (Rev. 2:23)? Why was Jesus worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38; Heb. 1:6) when He says to worship God only (Matt. 4:10)? (same Greek word for worship is used in each place.)
In the OT God was seen (Exodus 6:2-3; 24:9-11; Num. 12:6-9; Acts 7:2), yet no man can see God (Exodus 33:20; John 1:18). It was not the Father that was seen in the OT (John 6:46). Who, then were they seeing? - See John 8:58. If Jesus is not God, then why did Jesus claim the divine name, "I AM", for Himself in John 8:58? see Exodus 3:14. Why did Jesus say you must honor him even as you honor the Father (John 5:23)? Why is it that both the Father and the Son give life (John 5:21)? Why did Jesus bear witness of Himself (John 8:18; 14:6)?
Etc.
Can you not see this as a false dichotomy? According to you, an idea is either "plucked out of the air" or "revealed by God's word". No other options?
How else would one arrive at the conclusion that Christ is God, whether you are a Church Father or not, if it wasn't first revealed?
I found a Catholic website which cites the many biblical references to Christ's divinity as evidence. This website is devoted to "scriptural evidence for the teachings of the Catholic faith." And yet you say that the scriptural writings were not the source of the idea. Which came first: the scripture, or the musings of the Church Fathers?
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinFascinating. I'll read the rest later, but I needed to address this bit first.
I am not familiar with you. Pardon me for being equally skeptical, but I have no faith at all as to the truth of what you represent yourself to be. I've nothing on which to base that except your say so, which I find doubtful due to your general lack of knowledge about the theory of knowledge -- I would think any teacher would have had to know how they and their students know anything.
No, the theory of knowledge never came up at my university actually. Perhaps because it was a Jesuit college, there were a lot of philosophy courses in general. For the education department, the focus was on how to teach skills and information to children who come from a broad range of learning styles, educational abilities, and emotional needs. Nothing on the theory of knowledge.
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by Rajk999Judging from your passing ignorance of over 1.3 billion people, your IQ is probably a quarter of what you say it is.
Im not insignificant because you are bothering with me and taking the trouble to reply.
Where do you think you got your IQ of 185 ? From yourself.. you did it? You made yourself smart? Thats cool ... tell me how you did it so maybe I can try it and rise above my IQ of 2. There must be something I did not do right ..... correct ?
