Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[PureX]

Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Originally posted by bmyers in short - yes, I think it is entirely possible that we do not have a completely accurate record of what Jesus said during the period of his actual ministry. The record is at the very least extremely incomplete, as there simply is not a sufficient amount of information in the gospels to cover everything said during a 2-3 year period of what we would have to assume is nearly continuous teaching.

Not to mention that his life does not seem to me to support many of the more religious claims made (perhaps) on his behalf. And even these later "interpreters" refrained from actually making Jesus claim he was God outright. The character I see in the stories, and I grant that this is a mere sketch of a character, does not seem to me to be the figure religion has turned him into. There have been many studies done over the years attempting to separate those sayings and events that would likely have been bonafide, from those what likely have been added later byover-excited "interpreters", and some concensus has even been reached, but in the end we'll never really know.

Yet perhaps that's why I LIKE the story so much, too. I see the Jesus that I believe is most heroic, while others see a different Jesus that they believe is the most heroic. In the end, we all get to decide for ourselves who Jesus was and what it means to be a hero. And I think maybe that's better than some fool "authority" telling us, anyway.

 

[ex_fundy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Originally posted by bmyers One of the other things I've always found a bit odd about the Christian faith in particular is that there are no direct writings at all from the person who supposedly is the originator of the faith, nor from any of his contemporaries

Very true Bmyers. It's commonly known in the social sciences (and law enforement) that human witnesses are generally quite unreliable. If you add to that fact an environment known to be superstitious and 30+ years of time, the records finally written would likely differ greatly from the original.

Christians try to counter this with the notion that God miraculously moved through the writers of these books so that only the truth was recorded. Yet, if this was the case, we'd expect far less confusion and apparent contradictions.

Some sects claim God guaranteed the truthfulness of every word and tense in the original manuscripts (the ultra-literalists). Other sects hold to God only intervening to the point of making sure the spiritual truth was correctly conveyed in the passages (the insignificant details were left to the individual writers). In my analysis, there are simply too many apparent contradictions to hold the first view. But the second view (while I still don't agree) is more easily defendable.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18
EX-Fundy, et al.

Isaiah,
I just wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring your post. But as I said earlier, I'm on travel and don't have my reference material with me. If the subject is still going when I get home, I'll try and write a reasonable response to your post.
I do find the subject of how unique Christianity really is very interesting. I don't agree that uniqueness equals truthfulness, but how much (if any) Christianity has borrowed from other religions/philosophies is important.

 

[Bigotboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Originally posted by PureX
Not to mention that his life does not seem to me to support many of the more religious claims made (perhaps) on his behalf.

How do you know what his life was like ?
As for the veracity of the scripture, does it not make sense that if Jesus is God, as described in the Bible, then he could certainly have the Bible written as accurately as needed to be ?

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
I do find the subject of how unique Christianity really is very interesting. I don't agree that uniqueness equals truthfulness, but how much (if any) Christianity has borrowed from other religions/philosophies is important.

Of the remaining major Western religions, the only one that Christianity could possibly have "borrowed from" in terms of philosophy, theology, etc., is the one that it DID "borrow from" - Judaism. Since Islam came along after the basic form of modern Christianity was already pretty well on the way to being established, it would hardly be likely to be a source. There is, of course, some reason to think that Christianity may have borrowed some ritual and timing from the older European religions that it displaced - for example, the traditional date for Christmas (there's absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus would have been born in what is now December), or much of the symbolism around Easter.

We would hardly expect Christianity to have anything from the Eastern traditions mentioned earlier, since the cultures involved had essentially no contact with one another until (again) the form of Christianity was pretty well set.

So perhaps Christianity's "unique" aspects are to be expected; it only has one remaining predecessor religion within the cultures in which it developed (and it happens to be the one from which Christianity claims direct descent), and Islam might be seen by some as an intentional reaction away from what Christianity was becoming (while still recognizing a good part of the Christian history).

 

[Bigotboy]

Originally posted by bmyers

So perhaps Christianity's "unique" aspects are to be expected; it only has one remaining predecessor religion within the cultures in which it developed (and it happens to be the one from which Christianity claims direct descent), and Islam might be seen by some as an intentional reaction away from what Christianity was becoming (while still recognizing a good part of the Christian history).

Define "christianity", and if possible include what you think its core principle is. That is, the principle, which if stood alone, would identify christianity. For example, the core principle of the American Republican Party would be self reliance. All the other stuff is supposed to reflect that core principle.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Christians are basically separated from other religions by their worship of Jesus (Christ).

Jesus is not considered a prophet or a holy man but the son (and equal) of God. In fact he is considered God. (as confusing as that is)

I never quite got this.. for monotheists like Christians actually have 3 Gods.. the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. No one ever explains it very well.. But it sound a lot like Zeus and Apollo to me.. a very Roman and Greek like tradition.

The Muslims and Jews are the only true monotheist… God is God and all others are prophets, holy men or angels etc.

Any Christians care to have a go at why they worship 3 Gods ?

 

[PureX]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

Originally posted by Bigotboy
How do you know what his life was like ?
As for the veracity of the scripture, does it not make sense that if Jesus is God, as described in the Bible, then he could certainly have the Bible written as accurately as needed to be ?

Even the Jesus of the bible (the only one we have outside of our own imaginations) did not claim himself to be God. All the quotes used to support this idea are metaphorical and are being interpreted to imply this. Yet in fact he did not say "I am God". My guess is that he believed and claimed himself to be an expression of God's nature in human form, and as such to be an example for the rest of us to learn from and follow. Thus, his inigmatic statements referring to himself as God-like. Then later, profoundly confused by the fact that their "massiah" could be killed without even a fight, his followers turned him into the ultimate martyr - a blood sacrifice to God Himself. Yet that smacked a little too obviously of paganism, so it was turned into some bizarre idea that God divided himself into two entities and then sacrificed one entity for us to apease the other. It's all too bizarre and convoluted for me to even take seriously.

Also, I don't see the behavior of Jesus in the stories to suggest any particular dependance on religion. He was a Jew, and he followed the traditions that most Jews followed at the time. Otherwise, he seemed more at odds with religion than not. And clearly his message and behavior was focussed on a spiritual path rather than on religious traditions. So these claims that we have to now be a religious Christian to be a Christian are not in keeping with Jesus message and life at all. And I think the quotes that imply this were added to the story later on by interpreters that by then could not even conceive of Christ outside of their own religion. And tis is still true for a lot of people today.

As to these rediculous assertions that the bible was kept "inerrant" by some feat of divine magic, I am convinced that this theory is fueled by people's need to pretend they can "own" God. After all, if God's will really is written down in a book, and we own that book, we then "own" the knowledge of God's mind and will, don't we? And if we then base all our ideas about God and life and each other on our interpretation of that book, our ideas will then be "God's ideas", too. Thus, the "magically inerrant bible" renders our own understanding of God and life absolute and irrefutable. I see this as nothing more than the irrational "dope" of religious fundamentalism, which is itself nothing more than an obsession with one's own righteousness. It's worse than foolish, it's actually an emotional illness masquerading as a theology.

 

[bob b]

Any Christians care to have a go at why they worship 3 Gods ?

Since it is obvious that the idea sounds bizarre to human minds, the only possible reason for believing it is that the idea is contained in a book (a collection of books actually) which some consider to be a highly reliable source of knowledge about what God is like.

BTW, most Christians believe that they worship one God, but in some strange and probably impossible way for human minds to understand completely this one God has three distinct personalities or essences.

Personally, I don't worry about this and other seeming contradictions, since I have great confidence that all these mysteries will be explained to me when I receive the priceless privilege of dwelling with God forever and ever.

 

[Aussie Thinker]

Bob B

Personally, I don't worry about this and other seeming contradictions, since I have great confidence that all these mysteries will be explained to me when I receive the priceless privilege of dwelling with God forever and ever.

Forgive me but that seems like the blindest faith I have ever heard.

The contradictions and weirdness should be a clue for you that something just doesn't ring true !

 

[isaiah 1:18]

Well Aussie Thinker, it is not as an obtuse a concept as it may seem.

In fact, we as humans are made up of three parts but we consider ourselves, the sum of each part, to be one individual being.

Using secular terminology, we have a body, a mind, and a consciousness. In likewise fashion, God appears to have the same but in a manner greater than us. That would make us an inferior facsimile of God. Hence, made in His likeness and image. (partly, but not the entire scope of that statement.)

And what is interesting is that no where in scripture do God, Jesus, or the holy spirit demonstrate a will of their own which nullifies any sense of individual sentience among the three. It appears that God is the "brains" of the operation. Christ is the body. The Holy Ghost(the silent one) the consciousness. This is how it is known that they are one.

Also, in the case of omniprescence, we know that it is a mathematical and philosophical impossibility to have more than one entity claim omnipresence. If it were so, then we would have a non-sequitor of two entities occupying the same space simultaneously. In the case of Jesus on Earth, he is in keeping with this principle when he states that He and the Father(God) are one. He also states that if you have seen me, you have seen the Father(God).

I hope this helps in furthering your understanding of how it is said that Christians believe in "God in three persons, blessed Trinity."

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18

Also, in the case of omniprescence, we know that it is a mathematical and philosophical impossibility to have more than one entity claim omnipresence. If it were so, then we would have a non-sequitor of two entities occupying the same space simultaneously.

If this is a valid argument, though, we'd also be forced to conclude that God, while "omnipresent", can't occupy the same space as, say, buildings or mountains or planets or stars. God would have to exist only where nothing else already exists, and that clearly isn't what most theologies would have us believe. The problem is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with two non-physical entities occupying the same place at the same time. Radio signals do it all the time, for one example, and in a more "spiritual" vein we have the supposed examples of "evil spirits" possessing individuals - which, unless the original soul is displaced, would have to imply two spirits in the same body. So I don't see how the omnipresence of multiple entities can be discarded quite so quickly.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Bigotboy
Define "christianity", and if possible include what you think its core principle is. That is, the principle, which if stood alone, would identify christianity. For example, the core principle of the American Republican Party would be self reliance. All the other stuff is supposed to reflect that core principle.

I think this is pretty well summed up in such statements of faith as the Apostle's Creed, but if you're looking for a single-sentence sort of statement - a "sound bite," if you will - it would probably be the idea that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of God, and that his death atones for the sins of humanity; believe in these results in individual salvation.

I don't think I could get that much shorter.

 

[isaiah 1:18]

Originally posted by bmyers
If this is a valid argument, though, we'd also be forced to conclude that God, while "omnipresent", can't occupy the same space as, say, buildings or mountains or planets or stars. God would have to exist only where nothing else already exists, and that clearly isn't what most theologies would have us believe. The problem is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with two non-physical entities occupying the same place at the same time. Radio signals do it all the time, for one example, and in a more "spiritual" vein we have the supposed examples of "evil spirits" possessing individuals - which, unless the original soul is displaced, would have to imply two spirits in the same body. So I don't see how the omnipresence of multiple entities can be discarded quite so quickly.

Well, let's look at the radio wave example.

Transmitter A: Frequency 100.00mhz @ 1000watts
Transmitter B: Frequency 100.00mhz @ 50 watts.

Receiver X: equidistant between Transmitters A & B

Receiver X when tuned at 100.00mhz can only receive the transmission of Transmitter A.

Even though, only transmission of Transmitter A is received due to it wattage, the transmission of B is still present. But since B's transmission is overridden by A's wattage, B's transmission is nil. (This is the principle behind jamming.) At this point, only atmospheric propogation may help Receiver X pick up Transmitter B's transmission with a bit of cross talk from A.

So in effect, pragmatically speaking, radio signals are not omnipresent with the ability of occupying the same space simultaneously. Their presence or recepetion is a function of Transmission wattage and reception sensitivity. (Of course if the Xmitters are of the same wattage and equidistant to the receiver, then you will hear the transmission of both on the same frequency. But that would be the equivalent of having only one transmitter broadcasting two programs simultaneously.)

That fun stuff aside, Allow me to clarify; two beings of equal greatness who are said to occupy all space cannot occupy all space simultaneously. (I think that is somewhat better, maybe.)

The "evil spirits" possession thing... perhaps another time. That seems to involve a different set of parameters some of which are unknowns (soul/spirit) even philospohically.

 

[BlueChild]

Originally posted by bmyers
Of the remaining major Western religions, the only one that Christianity could possibly have "borrowed from" in terms of philosophy, theology, etc., is the one that it DID "borrow from" - Judaism...

...There is, of course, some reason to think that Christianity may have borrowed some ritual and timing from the older European religions that it displaced - for example, the traditional date for Christmas (there's absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus would have been born in what is now December), or much of the symbolism around Easter...

...So perhaps Christianity's "unique" aspects are to be expected; it only has one remaining predecessor religion within the cultures in which it developed

Are you forgetting Greek mythology (Zeus and his buddies)? Didn't the Romans have a mythology, too?

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by BlueChild
Are you forgetting Greek mythology (Zeus and his buddies)? Didn't the Romans have a mythology, too?

Note the qualifier "remaining" in the last statement re predecessor religions. And while the Romans had a mythology, it was utterly replaced by Christianity through the dictate of the emperor Constantine in 312AD, fairly early in the development of Christianity, and the religion doesn't seem to have borrowed much in the way of theology or philosophy from its Roman predecessor.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18
Well, let's look at the radio wave example.

Transmitter A: Frequency 100.00mhz @ 1000watts
Transmitter B: Frequency 100.00mhz @ 50 watts.

Receiver X: equidistant between Transmitters A & B

Receiver X when tuned at 100.00mhz can only receive the transmission of Transmitter A.

I believe your original argument, though, said that two entities could not be in the same SPACE at the same time - i.e., this was a question of physical location, not frequency or other attributes.
Many, many radio signals can be at different frequencies, and all received at the exact same location - so it's hard to see how we could say that they are anything but "omnipresent" within a given area. And nothing in that argument keeps us from extending the idea of simultaneous presence in space to any possible physical location.

So in effect, pragmatically speaking, radio signals are not omnipresent with the ability of occupying the same space simultaneously.

Unless you move your TV antenna every time you want to change channels, I think they are.

Their presence or recepetion is a function of Transmission wattage and reception sensitivity. (Of course if the Xmitters are of the same wattage and equidistant to the receiver, then you will hear the transmission of both on the same frequency. But that would be the equivalent of having only one transmitter broadcasting two programs simultaneously.)

Actually, that's not the case; the effect depends on the nature of the modulation scheme (you just had to get into this with an electrical engineer, didn't you? ). Simultaneous reception of two AM transmissions on precisely the same frequency actually results in BOTH being completely intelligible; it sounds as though you were listening to two radios tuned to different programs at once. Since this does require very good frequency alignment, the best example I can point you to is the simultaneous reception of the time and frequency standard stations WWV (here in Fort Collins, CO) and WWVH (Hawaii), which is pretty common throughout the Western U.S.. You can very distinctly hear BOTH stations announce the time and other information separately (they're only distinguishable by the fact that WWVH uses a different announcer for the taped message, at least recently a female voice vs. WWV's male). This occurs even though the signals are typically of different strengths. In the analogous situation with FM transmissions, you only hear one, but this is due to what's known as the "capture effect" that happens within the receiver's demodulator.

That fun stuff aside, Allow me to clarify; two beings of equal greatness who are said to occupy all space cannot occupy all space simultaneously. (I think that is somewhat better, maybe.)

OK, but I still don't see why not...

I think what you are getting at is that these two beings could not be "equal in greatness" and in all other aspects without being identical - that is, in truth only one being. But that would then be what your opponent seems to be saying as well.

 

[LightSon]

with the frequency of these wave arguments, I'm going to have to tune you guys out, as they are over my head.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by isaiah 1:18

I hope this helps in furthering your understanding of how it is said that Christians believe in "God in three persons, blessed Trinity."

Just as an additional aside on this point - the Trinity is also not necessarily a unique aspect of Christianity. Hinduism, for example, can very legitimately be said to be a monotheistic religion in the same sense as Christianity, and even a Trinitarian one. Hindus recognize only one true Supreme Being, but refer to the different "aspects" or "incarnations" of that being under different names. "Brahman" is the name for the pantheistic unifying principle, but different names are given to the three major manifestations of that principle: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver, and Siva (Shiva) the destroyer. (Since there are other lesser aspects or manifestations, Hinduism can't strictly be said to be Trinitarian, but rather is referred to as "henotheistic" - having a large number of manifestations of a single principle.)

 

[bob b]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Bob B
Forgive me but that seems like the blindest faith I have ever heard.
The contradictions and weirdness should be a clue for you that something just doesn't ring true !

We take things on faith in many things in our lives, particularly whenever we are dealing with information given to us by sources that have given us reliable information in the past.

My faith in the Bible is based on my experience with past disputes that were eventually resolved, over many years, always in favor of the scriptures. Thus, I give the scriptures the benefit of the doubt on current disputes or questions.

I did not always do this, but over a very long period of time I learned that the Bible always is proven correct in the end.

I hope you will live long enough to experience firsthand this same interesting phenomenon.