The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Jesus Christ Son of God? Options
leonAzul
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2012 11:00:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,129
Neurons: 25,822
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Daveski wrote:
leonAzul wrote:
Daveski wrote:
National Socialism was a religion.


That's a rather broad definition of religion, don't you think?

Or don't you?



It appears that I am the one 'thinking' here. National Socialism drew heavily from mythology, was a cult, was a cult of a personality leader, a leader who often claimed divine inspiration,

A citation is required here. One might recognize the application of ritual towards a political purpose, yet ritual is the husk of faith. It is also moot whether an articulated credo constitutes a religion.

Daveski wrote:

… it believed in world domination - cultural or otherwise, had its own scripture ~ 'Mein Kampf'; written by its own 'prophet', had millions of fanatical followers, many who would willingly die to further its cause, had its own symbolism & was a self-contained belief system in its own right.

I reckon that defines it as a religion.


I reckon not.

I reckon it as an Austrian with an extraordinary gift of gab who managed to convince too many people that confidence is more important than competence.

Good form on you for not using the "H" word to "godwin" this thread.



"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
Daveski
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2012 11:09:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
leonAzul wrote:

A citation is required here.


No it isn't.

leonAzul wrote:
One might recognize the application of ritual towards a political purpose, yet ritual is the husk of faith.


Virtually everything that the Nazis did was ritualistic.

leonAzul wrote:
It is also moot whether an articulated credo constitutes a religion.


This is just bandying semantics.

Daveski wrote:

… it believed in world domination - cultural or otherwise, had its own scripture ~ 'Mein Kampf'; written by its own 'prophet', had millions of fanatical followers, many who would willingly die to further its cause, had its own symbolism & was a self-contained belief system in its own right.

I reckon that defines it as a religion.


leonAzul wrote:
I reckon not.


I reckon it does.

leonAzul wrote:
I reckon it as an Austrian with an extraordinary gift of gab who managed to convince too many people that confidence is more important than competence.


The Austrian's deficiencies & lack of empathy & social skills were taken to be divine providence & superhuman by a desperate people at a desperate time. This has all the hallmarks of the founding of a religion.

leonAzul wrote:
Good form on you for not using the "H" word to "godwin" this thread.


d'oh! You've blown it now Leon by mentioning 'the Austrian'! ROTFL

docendo discimus
leonAzul
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2012 11:17:55 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,129
Neurons: 25,822
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
Daveski wrote:

d'oh! You've blown it now Leon by mentioning 'the Austrian'! ROTFL


You showed your hand by mentioning "National Socialism" in a thread about the divinity of Jesus.

Think

"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2012 11:55:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 11,025
Neurons: 357,725
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Daveski wrote:
leonAzul wrote:
I am rather astounded that with all the scriptural evidence that Jesus himself claimed to be "The Son of Man" that anyone with two neurons communicating with each other would claim that he is the "Son of God."


It's probably more a matter of semantics, semiotics, interpretation or translation as to why that particular phrase was used.


It is more a matter of Divinity.

'The Son of Man' was the Messianic title of Jesus and comes fron the Book of Daniel:
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

Jesus liked to refer to himself as 'The Son of Man'. He knew it would mean something to his disciples who looked for the Messiah - the One who was fully human yet fully Divine. Only Jesus the God was good enough to pay the price of our sins. Only Jesus the Man could suffer under the penalty of sin. What would be the point of Jesus being crucified if it was all an act and he felt no pain, physically or mentally?


I remember, therefore I am.
Daveski
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:00:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
leonAzul wrote:
Daveski wrote:

d'oh! You've blown it now Leon by mentioning 'the Austrian'! ROTFL


You showed your hand by mentioning "National Socialism" in a thread about the divinity of Jesus.

Think


Yeah, sorry about that. But in my defence, the 'Austrian' was considered a messiah of sorts. So technically still on topic.

docendo discimus
Daveski
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:08:46 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Daveski wrote:
[quote=leonAzul]I am rather astounded that with all the scriptural evidence that Jesus himself claimed to be "The Son of Man" that anyone with two neurons communicating with each other would claim that he is the "Son of God."


It's probably more a matter of semantics, semiotics, interpretation or translation as to why that particular phrase was used.


jacobusmaximus wrote:
It is more a matter of Divinity.


Erm ... not really. That's a subjective statement.

jacobusmaximus wrote:
'The Son of Man' was the Messianic title of Jesus and comes fron the Book of Daniel:


This is conjecture as the OT is much older that NT events & any connection is tenuous.

jacobusmaximus wrote:
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”


No, I'm sorry. This is, as they say in Scottish law: 'Not Proven'. These lines could refer to anything.

jacobusmaximus wrote:
Jesus liked to refer to himself as 'The Son of Man'. He knew it would mean something to his disciples who looked for the Messiah - the One who was fully human yet fully Divine.


This is still conjecture. You don't know how the historical figure of 'Jesus' liked to refer to himself as. You weren't there. You only know what you can surmise from second-hand accounts. Again ... Not Proven.

jacobusmaximus wrote:
Only Jesus the God was good enough to pay the price of our sins. Only Jesus the Man could suffer under the penalty of sin. What would be the point of Jesus being crucified if it was all an act and he felt no pain, physically or mentally?


What about all the other mythological deities who suffered, died & were resurrected?

Again ... Not Proven.

docendo discimus
SilvatungdaViel
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:30:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/7/2011
Posts: 298
Neurons: 733
Location: United States, VA
Teluu wrote:
If Jesus is the only son of God then, how about you nephew of God?



http://books.google.com/books?id=cgDMke3dwSQC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=grail+nephew&source=bl&ots=ja6kplz5ny&sig=RZHOngxdbs4ikd2O3FaxH5IiO-w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Vv6wULneC8OU0QHQq4CYBg&sqi=2&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=grail%20nephew&f=false

'DON'T TREAD ON ME'
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:45:29 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 11,025
Neurons: 357,725
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Daveski wrote:
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Daveski wrote:
[quote=leonAzul]I am rather astounded that with all the scriptural evidence that Jesus himself claimed to be "The Son of Man" that anyone with two neurons communicating with each other would claim that he is the "Son of God."


It's probably more a matter of semantics, semiotics, interpretation or translation as to why that particular phrase was used.


jacobusmaximus wrote:
It is more a matter of Divinity.


Erm ... not really. That's a subjective statement.

jacobusmaximus wrote:
'The Son of Man' was the Messianic title of Jesus and comes fron the Book of Daniel:


This is conjecture as the OT is much older that NT events & any connection is tenuous.

jacobusmaximus wrote:
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”


No, I'm sorry. This is, as they say in Scottish law: 'Not Proven'. These lines could refer to anything.

jacobusmaximus wrote:
Jesus liked to refer to himself as 'The Son of Man'. He knew it would mean something to his disciples who looked for the Messiah - the One who was fully human yet fully Divine.


This is still conjecture. You don't know how the historical figure of 'Jesus' liked to refer to himself as. You weren't there. You only know what you can surmise from second-hand accounts. Again ... Not Proven.

jacobusmaximus wrote:
Only Jesus the God was good enough to pay the price of our sins. Only Jesus the Man could suffer under the penalty of sin. What would be the point of Jesus being crucified if it was all an act and he felt no pain, physically or mentally?


What about all the other mythological deities who suffered, died & were resurrected?

Again ... Not Proven.


I don't know - I believe.

I remember, therefore I am.
Daveski
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2012 12:47:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
jacobusmaximus wrote:


I don't know - I believe.


I rest my case.

docendo discimus
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 3:25:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 11,025
Neurons: 357,725
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Daveski wrote:
jacobusmaximus wrote:


I don't know - I believe.


I rest my case.


I'm taking mine to a higher court.

I remember, therefore I am.
dusty
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 4:52:50 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 5,755


It's not much different than believing in abiogenesis for no other reason than a psychological need for Divinity not to exist for the equally feeble-minded atheists.

Yeah, I can't tell you how disappointed I am in you Dave for that one. You are far more intelligent than to buy into that crap, that is something Dawkins would do. I expected you to let it end with life arriving via Celestial Collision. A stick to the facts and everything else is unknown (except that entropy doesn't allow nature to build an engine and than fire it up.

As far as immaculate conception, the vocabulary is flawed, but not the story. Jesus's new house, occupied three days after he left the cells that those rat bastards by force, ceased the billions of cooperating, communicating no questions asked working together for a higher purpose voluntary slave network that is the human body, was not the same cells. The cycle of life cycles, the retaining your memory from life to life as a human is the Son of the Living God. The Son is the father as only those who live accordingly with the responsibility required of humans, with find a home in another human body after this death. There is no body to come after, as even Satan will not "get Behind" the Lord, as behind is after, and in front of is Before.

All of our biological Fathers came before US, it is Our Father's and Our Mother's children who come after, there is not the separation or distinct spiritual difference between three generations (or how ever many live for any significant amount of time simultaneously) In the Celestial of Spiritual sense, it is one Spirit, the same (Just that parents are the before, children are the after, life seems disctinct and separate as the Living, but the living IS the life before {past} and the life after {future})

. We are all the daughters and sons of our mothers and fathers. And when those who came before US Die, We are our Father, come unto a Mother, their marriage, His Wife, is Our Life.

And only those responsible enough after these days of probation will be born to houses of Human Body after this immediately living body dies. Only those who remember how it is mandatory we live as humans, and can teach Our children, will continue on. Those who do, will realize that Our Children, are US. And because you must realize and show your child what is really important, how to live at the level of responsibility necessary for a human being in Heaven, it can matter who you combine with as your life. What your child does or doesn't do as far as choosing to live responsible enough to carry on, much more than affects you, it is YOU. Choose a life who cares, choose to teach your child the truth, give them the skills to know and discern. If you care about having a home as a human and not something much lower in the hierarchy, quit fucking around and do the responsible thing, and practice honesty. And if not, I hope for you that I am wrong.

To be concerned of the fate of the world is not bad, but bearing false witness is to not be
Blooper
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 6:28:46 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 839
Neurons: 2,292
Location: South Borneo
If we are 200k years old as species then what were we before that?

"Wherever ye are, death will find you out, even if ye are in towers built up strong and high!" (An-Nisa':78)
Daveski
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 7:49:47 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Daveski wrote:
jacobusmaximus wrote:


I don't know - I believe.


I rest my case.


I'm taking mine to a higher court.


Yes, an invisible one in the sky (*Nephelokokkygia). Good luck with that.

*Nephelokokkygia

docendo discimus
Daveski
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 7:51:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
Blooper wrote:
If we are 200k years old as species then what were we before that?


Human Evolution

docendo discimus
Daveski
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 8:22:29 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
dusty wrote:


It's not much different than believing in abiogenesis for no other reason than a psychological need for Divinity not to exist for the equally feeble-minded atheists.


No, it has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis whatsoever. The concept of dying & resurrected gods are undoubtedly a Jungian archetype. They originated in the imagination of the earliest humans. It is probably no coincidence that the story was applied to the historical figure of Jesus. Although I am not sure as to exactly why, nor why a Zoroastrian story was included in the Nativity. No doubt there were political intentions for those creating the story in the first place. Early Christianity was often confused with Mithraism, a religion which at one time, was practised from the British Isles to China. It was particularly popular with Roman soldiers. It could be that this confusion enabled other traditions to be included in the story.

dusty wrote:
Yeah, I can't tell you how disappointed I am in you Dave for that one. You are far more intelligent than to buy into that crap, that is something Dawkins would do.


I hate to 'disappoint' you dusty, but the archetypal manifestations of resurrected deities has been well researched. It certainly cannot be described as 'crap'. Joseph Campbell has a lot to say about this phenomenon. You should read his 'The Masks of God' & 'Myths to Live By'. George Lucas certainly did! Christianity is only one religion in a long line that follows this pattern of archetypes.

dusty wrote:
I expected you to let it end with life arriving via Celestial Collision. A stick to the facts and everything else is unknown (except that entropy doesn't allow nature to build an engine and than fire it up.


Life didn't arrive at a celestial collision. It developed in the primordial oceans of the early Earth. This is a different topic however.

dusty wrote:
As far as immaculate conception, the vocabulary is flawed, but not the story. Jesus's new house, occupied three days after he left the cells that those rat bastards by force, ceased the billions of cooperating, communicating no questions asked working together for a higher purpose voluntary slave network that is the human body, was not the same cells. The cycle of life cycles, the retaining your memory from life to life as a human is the Son of the Living God. The Son is the father as only those who live accordingly with the responsibility required of humans, with find a home in another human body after this death. There is no body to come after, as even Satan will not "get Behind" the Lord, as behind is after, and in front of is Before.


Parthenogenesis (immaculate conception) has been claimed by a whole collection of deities before Christianity & no doubt will be by later religions. It is mythology in religions, not reality. Although there do seem to be some precedents for it actually in nature. In which fact it is just a natural (if unusual) biological (& therefore evolutionary) process.

dusty wrote:
All of our biological Fathers came before US, it is Our Father's and Our Mother's children who come after, there is not the separation or distinct spiritual difference between three generations (or how ever many live for any significant amount of time simultaneously) In the Celestial of Spiritual sense, it is one Spirit, the same (Just that parents are the before, children are the after, life seems disctinct and separate as the Living, but the living IS the life before {past} and the life after {future})

. We are all the daughters and sons of our mothers and fathers. And when those who came before US Die, We are our Father, come unto a Mother, their marriage, His Wife, is Our Life.


Ermmm ... not sure what you mean here.

dusty wrote:
And only those responsible enough after these days of probation will be born to houses of Human Body after this immediately living body dies. Only those who remember how it is mandatory we live as humans, and can teach Our children, will continue on. Those who do, will realize that Our Children, are US. And because you must realize and show your child what is really important, how to live at the level of responsibility necessary for a human being in Heaven, it can matter who you combine with as your life. What your child does or doesn't do as far as choosing to live responsible enough to carry on, much more than affects you, it is YOU. Choose a life who cares, choose to teach your child the truth, give them the skills to know and discern. If you care about having a home as a human and not something much lower in the hierarchy, quit fucking around and do the responsible thing, and practice honesty. And if not, I hope for you that I am wrong.


I'm as honest as I can be. I honestly do believe in reincarnation. I also honestly believe that that belief can't be proved. Just like anything else that is a subjective unverifiable ontological construct.

docendo discimus
dusty
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:15:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 5,755
Blooper wrote:
If we are 200k years old as species then what were we before that?


An honest evolutionary biologist would have the most precise knowledge of the mechanisms that went from the first days of life on Earth and how that life became all that is living today, in this age 2012 AD or CE or whatever Gregorian years.



But Darwin had the basics right, and I wouldn't doubt that the scriptures told a basic true story without all the details (that is if you read it as a genealogical history or Ourstory from the beginning, if it's read with an open mind and the time schemes aren't held selfsame years of earth


the stories of Noah make a lot more sense if it's read from a more realistic truthful perspective. Such as the the evolution of the "city" AKA eukaryote and prokaryote cells .

Most evolutionary biologists understand that all the "organelles" and their machinary closely resemble a an much simpler life in the hierarchy like bacteria. And when water was delivered (in a violent Celestial Collision) and life was given the means to progress, the arc noah "built" makes much more sense as the evolutionary story of more complex life of the highly organized and compartmentalized single celled organisms.

Basically the "two of every living thing" being taken on to the ark could be larger cells incorporating simple bacteria like life and using them as organs or organelles within their life. It's important to remember that the Bible was supposed to be an account of everyone's honest journals, not cannonized edited excerpts that confuse the hell of of sex scenes by "codeing" them as FCC approved terms like went into her for had sex and came in her.



Sort of like lichen is fungus and photosynthesizing cyano bacteria setting up shop and doing business together in as the organism we call lichen.







To be concerned of the fate of the world is not bad, but bearing false witness is to not be
leonAzul
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:24:28 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,129
Neurons: 25,822
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
dusty wrote:
Blooper wrote:
If we are 200k years old as species then what were we before that?


An honest evolutionary biologist would have the most precise knowledge of the mechanisms that went from the first days of life on Earth and how that life became all that is living today, in this age 2012 AD or CE or whatever Gregorian years.


I disagree. You have conflated honesty with competence, and proof with evidence.

In fact, anyone who claims omniscience is a liar, a fraud, or seriously deluded, and quite possibly all three.

That still doesn't explain why you are rambling on about other folks' veracity in a thread about the divinity of Jesus.






"Make it go away, Mrs Whatsit," he whispered. "Make it go away. It's evil."
jacobusmaximus
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:25:54 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 11,025
Neurons: 357,725
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Daveski wrote:
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Daveski wrote:
jacobusmaximus wrote:


I don't know - I believe.


I rest my case.


I'm taking mine to a higher court.


Yes, an invisible one in the sky (*Nephelokokkygia). Good luck with that.

*Nephelokokkygia


Thanks for your good wishes, Mr Trusting.

I remember, therefore I am.
Daveski
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:30:43 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Daveski wrote:
jacobusmaximus wrote:
Daveski wrote:
jacobusmaximus wrote:


I don't know - I believe.


I rest my case.


I'm taking mine to a higher court.


Yes, an invisible one in the sky (*Nephelokokkygia). Good luck with that.

*Nephelokokkygia


Thanks for your good wishes, Mr Trusting.


You're welcome, Mr Trustsincloudcuckooland.

docendo discimus
dusty
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 9:41:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 5,755
Sorry Leon, I meant to close it all with "I bet Jesus, the Son of God hates NASA"

To be concerned of the fate of the world is not bad, but bearing false witness is to not be
Daveski
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:02:44 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
dusty wrote:
... as how the sun is orbiting another Celestial Center, so every revolution the Sun makes is many many many years to us as we are have been circling our Sun for quite some time yet those fools still think we are hurdling through space in a free-for-all expanding universe with an explosion at the center.


Ever so slightly off-topic ... but dusty, you shouldn't confuse the rotation of our galaxy with the orbital track of the Earth around the Sun (even though the Sun & the Earth both technically orbit a common centre, or barycentre, of gravity). The galaxy the Solar System inhabits (often referred to as the 'Milky Way' galaxy) is revolving like a giant wheel. It has its own centre. Not all observed galaxies are this shape or have a definable centre. All local galaxies appear to be in clusters of galaxies. All of the observable clusters of galaxies are moving away from a fixed point. This point is indeed the ultimate point of the origin of everything. It would need a huge explosive force to push everything in creation away from it, hence the appellation 'Big Bang'.

docendo discimus
dusty
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:23:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 5,755
They are moving in a orbit like an oblong circle, but I will stay on topic in that what I should have said was:

it is no making claims of discounting peoples beliefs in a higher power when you are going to the same crazy lengths just to believe divinity does not exist.

I didn't mean to accuse you of lying, I believe you do believe in God and that is not my issue, it's that I don't believe you believe in many of the theories you describe to strengthen your argument.

I do not believe you because you are more intelligent than that.

To be concerned of the fate of the world is not bad, but bearing false witness is to not be
Daveski
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:52:30 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
dusty wrote:
They are moving in a orbit like an oblong circle,


By 'they' you mean what? All observable galactic clusters are moving away from the epicentre of the Big Bang.

dusty wrote:
it is no making claims of discounting peoples beliefs in a higher power when you are going to the same crazy lengths just to believe divinity does not exist.


I don't know whether there is a divinity, or a plurality of divinities or otherwise. All I am saying is that there is no tangible or empirical proof for any deity (or deities) living, dead or undead.

dusty wrote:
I didn't mean to accuse you of lying,


You can if you wish, this is a debating forum after all lol. I'm not offended by it, although I know you weren't accusing me of mendacity. There is someone on these forums who has accused me of plagiarism (it isn't you though dusty), but they aren't brave enough to repeat the claim apparently. I have a feeling they may be, how can I say it? 'A bit short in a certain department anatomically'. LOL

dusty wrote:
I believe you do believe in God and that is not my issue,


I'd describe myself as an agnostic. I have a 'spirituality' for want of a better word, of my own, but I very much doubt that the Judeo-Christian god actually exists. If it does, it could well be arrested for crimes against humanity in my opinion. The universe is far from perfect & humanity is essentially flawed. I tend to agree with the Buddhists & the Taoists on this one.

dusty wrote:
it's that I don't believe you believe in many of the theories you describe to strengthen your argument.


Which theories are these? My argument all along is that there is no evidence whatsoever for an omnipotent deity who created the universe. The biological evolution of life on Earth is being more & better understood every day. All of the scientific theories & evidence I have discussed are real. It doesn't disprove the concept of an entity that creates universes. It doesn't prove it either though. What it does suggest is that whatever event created the Big Bang & thus the entire cosmos very probably had nothing to do with the evolution of life on this planet. I'm just looking at the evidence.

dusty wrote:
I do not believe you because you are more intelligent than that.


I don't know how this applies to intelligence quotient. I have always stated the same things.

docendo discimus
Blooper
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:55:24 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 839
Neurons: 2,292
Location: South Borneo
It's said that modern humans evolved from primates that diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago.
What were these the other mammals diverged from? From other animals? And what were these animals from?
Let's say from inorganic matters, where these inorganic matters came from? From the other inorganic matters. Gases maybe? Where these gases came from? From... and on and on and on...

*genuine question

"Wherever ye are, death will find you out, even if ye are in towers built up strong and high!" (An-Nisa':78)
Daveski
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 11:02:21 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
Blooper wrote:
It's said that modern humans evolved from primates that diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago.
What were these the other mammals diverged from? From other animals? And what were these animals from?
Let's say from inorganic matters, where these inorganic matters came from? From the other inorganic matters. Gases maybe? Where these gases came from? From... and on and on and on...

*genuine question


This is heading towards cosmology & the argument of infinite regression. I suggest you read some David Hume & his replies to the *teleological (Paley's Watch Analogy particularly) & ontolological arguments for the existence of deity before dragging this thread through to its ultimate conclusion & sinking into the inevitable quagmire of trolldom.

*Also known as the design argument.

Scientia Potestas Est ...

docendo discimus
dusty
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 2:13:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 5,755
All of my rant wasn't meant to be directed at you Dave. But I do get very offended, albeit for no good reason, when otherwise rational atheists or agnostics go out of there way to not stick with the facts, but begin to serve an agenda due to a equal and opposite false doctrine of a need for Divinity not to exist.

For some reason I more readily tolerate religious fundamentalist gibberish and outright wrong beliefs more so than I do the equal and opposite labors of the atheists that need to prove God does not exist.

It is mostly due to me view of impersonating a scientist as worst than impersonating any other, I won't make you feel like you have to defend the theories which I disagree with, but anyway that was all that I meant to address to you. I am sure you know my views on science organizations that I believe are less than truthful.

I was honestly mad at Paul the original author of many epistles in the New Testament because I hear a very passive aggressive tone in a lot of his words that I think either stems from jealousy about feeling his work was to be with the poor while other disciples were not, or else he knew his words were going to be edited and compiled into today's cannonized bible. Paul himself was a skilled writer and editor and I guess I often place more blame of him for what I believe is a gross misinterpretations of Genealogical history.

It's wrong, because he had nothing to do with the Old Testament, which happens to be where I feel it is as if churches are intentionally teaching the innocent the wrong thing due to pride and being adamant on the meaning of content long ago
during times when the church wrongly believed science was in contradiction with The Word.

I do not believe in the Trinity in the same way it is traditionally thought. I believe in a higher power more along the lines of the past, the now, and the future.

I strongly believe we are ALL the literal Daughter or Son of God should we choose to be. I don't view time passing in the same ways most people do because I understand the Living God and The Spirit to travel in a way that is genetically speaking backwards. By that I mean that I see the physical body and the successive generations of offspring as forward movement or going the number of the generation increasing. But at the same time I see it as Combining Spiritually. Or in other words getting smaller or fewer spiritual generations of those who prove worthy of the Human Spirit (which I label as the Living GOD, My LORD and Savior Jesus Christ) And in regards to offsprings and generations such as Parents, Children and Grandchildren, they are much more the same living soul than most people will ever realize due to the false impression of being separate and distinct because we often live simultaneously.

The only difference or distinction is how we combine in spirit. Which is to say who or Father cleaves into (mother) genetically not necessary sexually thought that is how the physical body combines it's genetics. We are spiritually Our Father and Mother. So who the father side of our parent "marries" and takes for a wife, that is who we are, and the only distinction that can be made between US spiritually and Our Father is the fact that we are our Father and Mother Combined.

I know it doesn't make sense, but it will if you just remember hearing it. And when it does, you will recognize it as "that's what he was saying"

I also believe if we all kept honest journals without the passive aggression and sarcasm, or at least clearly stated without ambiguity exactly what we meant without beating around the bush, everything would make a lot more sense, and nearly everybody would live as a Human Being, The Living GOD in Heaven instead of so few who are waking Up in these latter days, which means they were here, but didn't recognize it and thus threw it away, or rejected the gift by default of not living responsible enough as a human or just plain failing to realize what is actually happening.

To be concerned of the fate of the world is not bad, but bearing false witness is to not be
Daveski
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 3:38:01 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
@dusty: I think that it is difficult to interpret Paul from reading translations of a script which dates to around 2000 years ago. He had his own political reasons for writing what he did. I don't know what his real motives were. I'm not buying the 'blinded by the light thing either'. Some people have even cynically suggested that Christianity should have been called 'Paulianity' because of his influence on the inchoate Christianity at that time. LOL

docendo discimus
dusty
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2012 10:13:12 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 5,755
He was a passive aggressive pervert and I often think a game player and manipulator. Ambiguity with anything other the love turns out to be labor to confuse.

The writings of Paul were not written by one man (as in a single generation, but most works were not and not explaining the crazy system of names and what they called each is one of the main reasons it makes no sense when read with the popular tone and meaning.

I don't need to read the original words in the original tongue to know that either Paul or the person responsible for changing his words, could be quite a prick.

To be concerned of the fate of the world is not bad, but bearing false witness is to not be
Daveski
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 2:34:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
dusty wrote:


I don't need to read the original words in the original tongue to know that either Paul or the person responsible for changing his words, could be quite a prick.


ROTFL

docendo discimus
Klaas V
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 4:47:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/12/2010
Posts: 1,341
Neurons: 4,802
All opinions of Jesus are subjective. John (the gospel writer [not the baptist]) wrote "And anyone who believes in God's Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn't obey the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God's angry judgment."

Christian point of view. The jews didn't believe him. Perhaps God sends his daughter next time?

With maybe the exception of the unasked there just isn't such thing available as a dumb question - Z4us
dusty
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 3:27:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 5,755
To be clear, I shouldn't have used "pervert" with such negative connotation without also explaining that it is the passive aggression that is primarily responsible for said connotation.

Or maybe we just need another term for perversion that is not unwanted. Because every situation can always be parsed down to being acceptable or not, which to many persons is the same meaning as right or wrong and many fail to realize the final line drawn has more to do with whether or not the (situation and behavior) is desired and explicitly consented to by fully knowledgeable adults in isolated situations where said choices and desires have no affect on the rest of the world now and in the future.

I say this because these days morally confused, yet devote followers in the many lucrative industries of religion, scream and wrongly rage the most and loudest against those who are merely doing the things that morally-confused-devotees wish to do

However that desire is not condoned by the proprietary denomination they willing gave control of their spiritual self for earthly monetary sum. And instead of asking and receiving an answer from The LORD, they use the answer they paid for as an excuse to mask anger and bundle it with every other negative emotion that never got addressed and unfairly unleash it on those who have the courage to ask, the courage to listen, and the courage to accept responsibility for their behavior, knowledge, and choices regarding morality/ethics.

To be concerned of the fate of the world is not bad, but bearing false witness is to not be
RuthP
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 6:45:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 4,960
Neurons: 36,127
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
Blooper wrote:
It's said that modern humans evolved from primates that diverged from other mammals about 85 million years ago.
What were these the other mammals diverged from? From other animals? And what were these animals from?
Let's say from inorganic matters, where these inorganic matters came from? From the other inorganic matters. Gases maybe? Where these gases came from? From... and on and on and on...

*genuine question

Hi Blooper,

A good question. It's one for which there is no definitive answer yet and it's a little far afield from the initial point of this thread.

It's been discussed before on TFD Which evolved first - DNA, proteins, ATP, enzymes, RNA, or something else?

Take a look at the link and at the several web sites linked therein. If you are still interested in further discussion, either re-activate that thread with a comment, or start a new one.

Ruth
Daveski
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 7:17:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/17/2012
Posts: 1,711
Neurons: 5,066
Location: Caer Sidi
RuthP wrote:


It's been discussed before on TFD Which evolved first - DNA, proteins, ATP, enzymes, RNA, or something else?

Take a look at the link and at the several web sites linked therein. If you are still interested in further discussion, either re-activate that thread with a comment, or start a new one.

Ruth[/color]


Honestly Ruth, I don't think it's worth trying to reanimate some of these zombie threads. My thread entitled Is the truth really out there? rapidly descended into a trollfest. The ultimate irony is that the thread had nothing to do with evolution but was a comment on the apparent intolerance on some bulletin board forums of people who question the evidence of 'Close Encounter' reports & of supposed extraterrestrial life. It's not that I disbelieve in ET, it is that I don't consider that there is any tangible evidence for extraterrestrials ever visiting Earth. I didn't know it at the time but this is one of the main bones of contention between the (predominantly American it seems) evolution vs creationism conflict. I am not an American & this whole, rather visceral, 'debate' was all argued to extinction in the 19th century in my country. Naively I assumed that most of the population of the western world automatically accepted the concept of natural selectivity & evolution. However, creationism & its twisted teleological cousin 'intelligent design' have become more prevalent with time. This in turn has led to almost any forum thread on the Internet that tries to discuss the evolutionary process in a sensible way turn into a circus. There really is no point in trying to discuss it any more. Even threads that were not initially about evolution end up being hijacked by the anti-evolution pro-creationism trolls & the insanity starts all over again. I once made the mistake of trying to discuss some of Koestler's ideas about evolution on a European (English speaking) forum. Within seconds I was accused of being a closet creationist & that Koestler was anti-evolution, which he wasn't. Then the real insanity started.

That's just my 5 bob's worth.

docendo discimus
dusty
Posted: Monday, November 26, 2012 10:18:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/13/2012
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 5,755
I appreciate your input RuthP and the links that may lead people to find what they are looking for.

I am sure you are much more aware than I am, but just in case other readers come across posts like this one or ol' Daveski's "Is the truth really out there" I feel I should warn them how it's *almost* as if Dave enjoys getting others all hot and bothered. So there is really no point getting upset at his attitude or comments when he makes assertions just for the philosophical sake of argument. A lot like a devil's advocate, but with mal-intent.

It took me quite a while to realize that a person who writes so well and has access to the finest communication robots the touring test for programmers with tourettes tour de IT France can produce, must himself be intelligent enough to know when something is science based sound theory in test, and some journalist who mixes creative writing into his work to get back at all the messed up agendas pushed by the super packs of the right wing (an anger I can certainly understand)

But just as easy as it is for him to recognize real science and what is not, it is equally easy to identify the times when the ancestor of Paul writes with an agenda.

Is it alright if I call you Paul from now on Dave?

To be concerned of the fate of the world is not bad, but bearing false witness is to not be
Phog
Posted: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:55:42 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 10/22/2010
Posts: 21
Neurons: 63
Location: United States
leonAzul wrote:
I am rather astounded that with all the scriptural evidence that Jesus himself claimed to be "The Son of Man" that anyone with two neurons communicating with each other would claim that he is the "Son of God."


The Bible identifies Jesus as the Son of God. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16 English Standard Version). "[Jesus] said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven'" (Matthew 16:15-17 ESV). "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:30-31 ESV).
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.