|
Post by clusium on Sept 20, 2018 3:10:14 GMT
In what way am I "prevaricating and deflecting here?!?!" Even writers outside of the Bible & Christian writings said that Christ was a Religious Teach that had Been Crucified. You are bringing up details of the Biblical record that are not central to the argument which is whether your faith is based on fact and truth or whether it is based on what you(plural) interpret the Bible says and because it says to have the faith that you have, hence the circular reasoning. Does that fact make it true that Jesus was the son of God as you so obviously believe? What argument was there? I was asked a question here: Why did I believe that Christianity is the Truth? My answer: Because of Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection. Nothing circular about that. That is why I believe it. What extra-biblical writers (particularly non-christian ones) prove is that a Man Named Jesus Existed, & He did Extraordinary Things, which made people believe that He was long-awaited Messiah of the Jewish people & that He was Divine. The fact that the early Christians (particularly those that actually knew Him during His Public Ministry, & saw Him after He Rose from the Dead) were willing to die for their witness, points this Truth.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 20, 2018 3:13:24 GMT
That is another logical fallacy If it was all a whole lie, they would have cowed out of preaching the Lord's Resurrection. Especially when you consider how sadistic Capital Punishment was in ancient times. That is another logical fallacy which doesn't even make sense. What do you mean? Who is 'they'? What is the direct relevance of your remark about capital punishment in that day to the truth of whether the Jesus story is true, especially his divinity. Sts. Peter, Paul, Philip, James #1, James # 2, Matthew, Andrew, Jude Thaddeus, Simon, Bartholomew, Thomas, Mark, etc. even St. John, who although was never actually executed, had been tortured excruciatingly, for his witness, as well as his imprisonment on the island of Patmos.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 20, 2018 3:55:20 GMT
You are bringing up details of the Biblical record that are not central to the argument which is whether your faith is based on fact and truth or whether it is based on what you(plural) interpret the Bible says and because it says to have the faith that you have, hence the circular reasoning. Does that fact make it true that Jesus was the son of God as you so obviously believe? What argument was there? I was asked a question here: Why did I believe that Christianity is the Truth? My answer: Because of Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection. Nothing circular about that. That is why I believe it. What extra-biblical writers (particularly non-christian ones) prove is that a Man Named Jesus Existed, & He did Extraordinary Things, which made people believe that He was long-awaited Messiah of the Jewish people & that He was Divine. The fact that the early Christians (particularly those that actually knew Him during His Public Ministry, & saw Him after He Rose from the Dead) were willing to die for their witness, points this Truth. Clusium. It is a religious belief amongst Christians in general and Catholics, in particular, that these events not only took place butt that they were divinely inspired. There is absolutely no evidence of this, except for the Bible. Hence we get back to the problem of circular reasoning again. It is a 'leap of faith' that you and others have taken because you have been told that this was divinely inspired. Furthermore, it is impossible to speculate to the point of belief that these events were divinely inspired from the writings of ancient writers who not only have been translate many times, butt interpreted, edited and for all we know, added to re-enforcing the gullibility of the times. It is understandable that you believe that your church s infallible, butt there is no evidence that it is. We have discussed in recent threads , the Catholic ( and other religions and churches) are political entities run by men, They are hierarchical and seek power over the population as well as lands and wealth. Hence it is entirely unlikely that the word of the Bible is in any way a direct representation of the events and motivations of over 2,000 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 20, 2018 4:46:29 GMT
What argument was there? I was asked a question here: Why did I believe that Christianity is the Truth? My answer: Because of Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection. Nothing circular about that. That is why I believe it. What extra-biblical writers (particularly non-christian ones) prove is that a Man Named Jesus Existed, & He did Extraordinary Things, which made people believe that He was long-awaited Messiah of the Jewish people & that He was Divine. The fact that the early Christians (particularly those that actually knew Him during His Public Ministry, & saw Him after He Rose from the Dead) were willing to die for their witness, points this Truth. Clusium. It is a religious belief amongst Christians in general and Catholics, in particular, that these events not only took place butt that they were divinely inspired. There is absolutely no evidence of this, except for the Bible. Hence we get back to the problem of circular reasoning again. It is a 'leap of faith' that you and others have taken because you have been told that this was divinely inspired. Furthermore, it is impossible to speculate to the point of belief that these events were divinely inspired from the writings of ancient writers who not only have been translate many times, butt interpreted, edited and for all we know, added to re-enforcing the gullibility of the times. It is understandable that you believe that your church s infallible, butt there is no evidence that it is. We have discussed in recent threads , the Catholic ( and other religions and churches) are political entities run by men, They are hierarchical and seek power over the population as well as lands and wealth. Hence it is entirely unlikely that the word of the Bible is in any way a direct representation of the events and motivations of over 2,000 years ago. I already pointed out that the Bible is not the only source. There are other ancient writings, both Christian & non-christian alike that attest to Christ Jesus. Anyhow, Christians are not the only religious group that relies on their Sacred Scripture (the Holy Bible); Muslims rely on the Quran; Hindus, the Vedas, Gita, Upanishads, Buddhists, with their scriptures, etc. And why wouldn't they? If a particular religious group believes that God Revealed Himself-or gods revealed themselves - to said group, why would they not consider the writings of how it came about that God's or gods' revelation came to be sacred? There was nothing circular in what I posted to Amysghost earlier, because I did not say that I believe in God, because of the Bible, & the reason I believe in the Bible, is because it is God's Word. THAT would be circular arguing. I gave a simple statement, that I believe in the validity of Christianity, because of Christ's Death & Resurrection. I believe in the Resurrection because of the eye witness testimony of the Apostles & disciples of Christ, who were all willing to testify to His Resurrection, right to the point of martyrdom. All the Apostles, withe the possible exception of St. James the son of Alphaeus, travelled to distant lands to preach the Gospel. St. Thomas even went all the way as far as India (the Indian Christians would be the first to tell you this, & I am referring not to Indian Christians that had been converted in recent years, but, from adherents of the Indian Orthodox Church). None of the Apostles--least of all, St. Paul--had anything to gain from preaching the Gospel. All they personally gained from their preaching were their own executions.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 8:53:29 GMT
Because you can't reason with simple logic and explanations, only see it as your belief and so it must be true because the bible says so and see that as an absolute. You have no sense of discernment, believe in fallacies and bogus accounts of something you can't POSSIBLY have any concrete sounding or fact based evidence to prove YOUR truth as it has been conditioned and brainwashed onto you. When you get back to the point you started at with your 'circular reasoning', you can only see one pov and that is what is inside the circle and forget that there is space all around it as well. You overlook one thing here, Cheesy: I never said I believed it was true, just because it is in the Holy Bible. Amysghost asked why I believe Christianity to be the truth, & I answered: Because Of Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection. FYI, I HAVE studied world religions, & have done so for many, many years. Interesting beliefs; interesting theologies. I still come away withe conclusion that Christianity is truth because of Christ's Suffering & Death for all our sins, & His Conquering Death by His Resurrection. Islam also claims to have the fullness of Truth, yet, all its belief is, there Is Only One God. That belief is shared by numerous religions (Christianity included). All the differences between other monotheistic religions seem to be that they have different founding Prophets, Gurus, or other kinds of religious leaders. Christianity takes it a step further by the fact that Christ Is MORE than just a Prophet: He Is the Son Of God. I think this discussion long ago went off on tangents. A question was posed: "Exactly, so what precisely defines Christianity as being anything other than simply another human-created religious system, no more or less fallible than any other? This seems to me to be asking what sets Christianity apart from other religions. But it is stated in such a way as to solicit an answer which will at least attempt to declare Christianity to be something other than "human-created" and less "fallible" than others. An answer was rendered. "Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection." In and of itself this answer is not circular. There have been prominent Christians who have argued that the resurrection of Jesus is a central thing setting Christianity apart. . Assumptions were made that an argument was being made that these aspects of the life and death of Jesus were true, and the only source of all of them being correct is the Bible. Another assumption was made that these beliefs about Jesus then prove the Bible to be authentic in terms of these claims. That would have been circular. So, does Christ's, Passion, Death, and Resurrection" distinguish Christianity from other religions?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 20, 2018 13:27:40 GMT
You overlook one thing here, Cheesy: I never said I believed it was true, just because it is in the Holy Bible. Amysghost asked why I believe Christianity to be the truth, & I answered: Because Of Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection. FYI, I HAVE studied world religions, & have done so for many, many years. Interesting beliefs; interesting theologies. I still come away withe conclusion that Christianity is truth because of Christ's Suffering & Death for all our sins, & His Conquering Death by His Resurrection. Islam also claims to have the fullness of Truth, yet, all its belief is, there Is Only One God. That belief is shared by numerous religions (Christianity included). All the differences between other monotheistic religions seem to be that they have different founding Prophets, Gurus, or other kinds of religious leaders. Christianity takes it a step further by the fact that Christ Is MORE than just a Prophet: He Is the Son Of God. I think this discussion long ago went off on tangents. A question was posed: "Exactly, so what precisely defines Christianity as being anything other than simply another human-created religious system, no more or less fallible than any other? This seems to me to be asking what sets Christianity apart from other religions. But it is stated in such a way as to solicit an answer which will at least attempt to declare Christianity to be something other than "human-created" and less "fallible" than others. An answer was rendered. "Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection." In and of itself this answer is not circular. There have been prominent Christians who have argued that the resurrection of Jesus is a central thing setting Christianity apart. . Assumptions were made that an argument was being made that these aspects of the life and death of Jesus were true, and the only source of all of them being correct is the Bible. Another assumption was made that these beliefs about Jesus then prove the Bible to be authentic in terms of these claims. That would have been circular. So, does Christ's, Passion, Death, and Resurrection" distinguish Christianity from other religions? Yes. While other religions' founders have been executed or murdered also, they did not rise from the dead. Moreover, the adherents of said religions do not teach that their religions' founders deaths were for the sins of the world, nor do they teach that the founders were the sons of God; just a prophet or something along those lines.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Sept 20, 2018 13:39:30 GMT
You overlook one thing here, Cheesy: I never said I believed it was true, just because it is in the Holy Bible. Amysghost asked why I believe Christianity to be the truth, & I answered: Because Of Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection. FYI, I HAVE studied world religions, & have done so for many, many years. Interesting beliefs; interesting theologies . I still come away withe conclusion that Christianity is truth because of Christ's Suffering & Death for all our sins, & His Conquering Death by His Resurrection. Islam also claims to have the fullness of Truth, yet, all its belief is, there Is Only One God. That belief is shared by numerous religions (Christianity included). All the differences between other monotheistic religions seem to be that they have different founding Prophets, Gurus, or other kinds of religious leaders. Christianity takes it a step further by the fact that Christ Is MORE than just a Prophet: He Is the Son Of God. Yes, I know all your responses thus far have been cheesy.
What don't you believe isn't true? Are you saying that Christ isn't the son of God? Isn't that what you are arguing for due to your belief in Christianity? It doesn't matter what you have studied regarding Christianity, the question being poised to you is, how does Christian belief make Jesus the son of God? By what measure and how do you prove it? I will ask another one as well, what does conquering death by resurrection mean?
I believe a man called Jesus used to walk the earth and he was a teacher and perhaps even healer and that he was most likely persecuted. That doesn't mean he is the son of some supernatural entity come to save the world of its sins.
Christ Is the Son Of God because He has no human father. He was Conceived By the Holy Spirit. However, only 2 of the 4 Gospels tell the Nativity story. All 4 Gospels tell the story of His Passion, His Death, and His Resurrection. In addition, the Gospels also tell of 3 Instances where the Father Speaks to Jesus, & 2 of those Instances (His Baptism & His Transfiguration), He Says that Jesus Is His Son. You are free to believe that Jesus was just a gifted healer when He Walked on Earth. Nobody is forcing you to believe otherwise. I was asked why I believe my religion (Christianity) was true, & I answered the question.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 14:02:35 GMT
Yes, I know all your responses thus far have been cheesy.
What don't you believe isn't true? Are you saying that Christ isn't the son of God? Isn't that what you are arguing for due to your belief in Christianity? It doesn't matter what you have studied regarding Christianity, the question being poised to you is, how does Christian belief make Jesus the son of God? By what measure and how do you prove it? I will ask another one as well, what does conquering death by resurrection mean?
I believe a man called Jesus used to walk the earth and he was a teacher and perhaps even healer and that he was most likely persecuted. That doesn't mean he is the son of some supernatural entity come to save the world of its sins.
Christ Is the Son Of God because He has no human father. He was Conceived By the Holy Spirit. However, only 2 of the 4 Gospels tell the Nativity story. All 4 Gospels tell the story of His Passion, His Death, and His Resurrection. In addition, the Gospels also tell of 3 Instances where the Father Speaks to Jesus, & 2 of those Instances (His Baptism & His Transfiguration), He Says that Jesus Is His Son. You are free to believe that Jesus was just a gifted healer when He Walked on Earth. Nobody is forcing you to believe otherwise. I was asked why I believe my religion (Christianity) was true, & I answered the question. I agree with you here. I prefer to say that Christ was conceived through the Holy Spirit rather than "by" but this is a minor point of semantics.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 14:13:52 GMT
I think this discussion long ago went off on tangents. A question was posed: "Exactly, so what precisely defines Christianity as being anything other than simply another human-created religious system, no more or less fallible than any other? This seems to me to be asking what sets Christianity apart from other religions. But it is stated in such a way as to solicit an answer which will at least attempt to declare Christianity to be something other than "human-created" and less "fallible" than others. An answer was rendered. "Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection." In and of itself this answer is not circular. There have been prominent Christians who have argued that the resurrection of Jesus is a central thing setting Christianity apart. . Assumptions were made that an argument was being made that these aspects of the life and death of Jesus were true, and the only source of all of them being correct is the Bible. Another assumption was made that these beliefs about Jesus then prove the Bible to be authentic in terms of these claims. That would have been circular. So, does Christ's, Passion, Death, and Resurrection" distinguish Christianity from other religions? Yes. While other religions' founders have been executed or murdered also, they did not rise from the dead. Moreover, the adherents of said religions do not teach that their religions' founders deaths were for the sins of the world, nor do they teach that the founders were the sons of God; just a prophet or something along those lines. I agree that the death and resurrection of Christ distinguishes Christianity from other religions, with the most important part by far that this was to take upon Himself the sins of the world to atone for them with His sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 20, 2018 20:25:55 GMT
You overlook one thing here, Cheesy: I never said I believed it was true, just because it is in the Holy Bible. Amysghost asked why I believe Christianity to be the truth, & I answered: Because Of Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection. FYI, I HAVE studied world religions, & have done so for many, many years. Interesting beliefs; interesting theologies. I still come away withe conclusion that Christianity is truth because of Christ's Suffering & Death for all our sins, & His Conquering Death by His Resurrection. Islam also claims to have the fullness of Truth, yet, all its belief is, there Is Only One God. That belief is shared by numerous religions (Christianity included). All the differences between other monotheistic religions seem to be that they have different founding Prophets, Gurus, or other kinds of religious leaders. Christianity takes it a step further by the fact that Christ Is MORE than just a Prophet: He Is the Son Of God. I think this discussion long ago went off on tangents. A question was posed: "Exactly, so what precisely defines Christianity as being anything other than simply another human-created religious system, no more or less fallible than any other? This seems to me to be asking what sets Christianity apart from other religions. But it is stated in such a way as to solicit an answer which will at least attempt to declare Christianity to be something other than "human-created" and less "fallible" than others. An answer was rendered. "Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection." In and of itself this answer is not circular. There have been prominent Christians who have argued that the resurrection of Jesus is a central thing setting Christianity apart. . Assumptions were made that an argument was being made that these aspects of the life and death of Jesus were true, and the only source of all of them being correct is the Bible. Another assumption was made that these beliefs about Jesus then prove the Bible to be authentic in terms of these claims. That would have been circular. So, does Christ's, Passion, Death, and Resurrection" distinguish Christianity from other religions? Semantics aside, the answer to the question posed MUST always be a circular argument because there is no factual, logical proof that Christianity is any different from any other man made religion. There is no proof that Jesus was the 'son of God', there is no proof that God even exists. As it is all based on hearsay, post dated accounts which have been translated and interpreted for over two thousand years, the only reason for belief remains the circular argument of 'I believe in Jesus/God because I believe I the myth because the Bible says so I believe it and I just believe it etc etc etc' In particular "Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection." is unproven and in physical terms an impossibility UNLESS you believe in divinity which in and of itself is a circular argument. The idea hat Jesus died for the sins of the world is purely an act of emotional blackmail of the faithful and an example of the power the church seek to have over its community, as is the corroborating arguments of original sin and 'free will'.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 20, 2018 20:47:49 GMT
I think this discussion long ago went off on tangents. A question was posed: "Exactly, so what precisely defines Christianity as being anything other than simply another human-created religious system, no more or less fallible than any other? This seems to me to be asking what sets Christianity apart from other religions. But it is stated in such a way as to solicit an answer which will at least attempt to declare Christianity to be something other than "human-created" and less "fallible" than others. An answer was rendered. "Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection." In and of itself this answer is not circular. There have been prominent Christians who have argued that the resurrection of Jesus is a central thing setting Christianity apart. . Assumptions were made that an argument was being made that these aspects of the life and death of Jesus were true, and the only source of all of them being correct is the Bible. Another assumption was made that these beliefs about Jesus then prove the Bible to be authentic in terms of these claims. That would have been circular. So, does Christ's, Passion, Death, and Resurrection" distinguish Christianity from other religions? Semantics aside, the answer to the question posed MUST always be a circular argument because there is no factual, logical proof that Christianity is any different from any other man made religion. There is no proof that Jesus was the 'son of God', there is no proof that God even exists. As it is all based on hearsay, post dated accounts which have been translated and interpreted for over two thousand years, the only reason for belief remains the circular argument of 'I believe in Jesus/God because I believe I the myth because the Bible says so I believe it and I just believe it etc etc etc' No, are using a different definition of the question posed or what is being asked or you are using the logical fallacy of "moving the goalposts. Did you read all of my post? Here you are doing once again what I said had been done already, to make assumptions about what was claimed about Jesus and the Bible. Yes, some discussion went that way as a tangent, but there was no circular reasoning in the first answer to the original question. Actually I think you are formulating a straw man argument. The question at hand does not rely upon whether Jesus was the true Son of God or that God exists. Whether true or not, the claim that Jesus was the Son of God and was ressurected to save mankind differentiates Christianity from other religions. Are the houses of Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw and Slytherin all the same, or can they be differentiated by some characteristics?
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Sept 20, 2018 22:45:12 GMT
gozMary is not divine by the Catholic church in any way. she's praised but she's still apart of creation where as God (i.e. The Holy Trinity (Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)) is the Creator. so given this info there is still a huge gap between the two even though she's still a powerful intercessor for us before God and why we pray The Holy Rosary. The Holy Rosary is basically the most powerful personal prayer there is. basically we venerate Mary where as adoration is reserved solely for God. also, Mary is God's masterpiece of creation (that means anything in physical existence and the other side which is the spiritual side with angels etc) as there is nothing higher than her in the created order. there is only One higher than her, which is God, and He's far above everything else. amyghostGod = The Holy Trinity (Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)... so yes, Jesus is God but so is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. don't worry if you can't comprehend that as no one can fully understand God even though some of us can grasp it a bit more than others etc. but in terms of pictures God the Father is typically shown as a old man, and Jesus as you already know is Jesus, and then a dove is typically shown as the Holy Spirit... (this picture depicts the coronation of Mary by God) p.s. for the record... the Catholic church is the authority on this since it's the Church He(Jesus Christ) guides as it started with Peter, who's the first pope, and then went down through the generations til today. the list of popes... www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 21, 2018 5:17:34 GMT
No, are using a different definition of the question posed or what is being asked or you are using the logical fallacy of "moving the goalposts. Did you read all of my post? Here you are doing once again what I said had been done already, to make assumptions about what was claimed about Jesus and the Bible. Yes, some discussion went that way as a tangent, but there was no circular reasoning in the first answer to the original question. Actually I think you are formulating a straw man argument. The question at hand does not rely upon whether Jesus was the true Son of God or that God exists. Whether true or not, the claim that Jesus was the Son of God and was ressurected to save mankind differentiates Christianity from other religions.
Are the houses of Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw and Slytherin all the same, or can they be differentiated by some characteristics?So you are making your own strawmans here, by using what we know as fictional accounts and yet comparing them to the bible which also contains mostly fictional elements in it which the deluded buy into.
What does Jesus being ressurected to save mankind even mean and where was he resurrected too? This is an illogical fallacy in Christianity. It doesn't matter if it separates it from other religions, that is not the point or question being poised as what makes Christ the son of God? You would have to define God first though to give a reasonable and lucid answer.
No, the original question was asking what makes Christianity different. The ressurection of Christ as a concept was the answer given, and it in fact does differentiate Christianity from other religions. So you too are setting up a straw man with elements that are not in the original question asked and the original answer given. But I have a question of my own. In this thread three people, who are non-Christian and possibly arheists all have gone off on tangents and morphed the original question into something else, about proving the truth of Christian claims. Why has this happened? You bring up a different subject than the original question. I made no such case to prove Jesus as the Son of God from fictional accounts or otherwise. I asked a question about Harry Potter as an analogy about differentiation. It was by design that I chose a fictional example. I am surprised that you missed the point in my doing so. My point is that if you can differentiate groups in a fictional account such as in Harry Potter books that you can do the same thing with religions even if you believe their claims are similarly fictional.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 21, 2018 5:44:48 GMT
I agree with you here. I prefer to say that Christ was conceived through the Holy Spirit rather than "by" but this is a minor point of semantics. What is the holy spirit? Where is the holy spirit and what does this even mean? The Holy Spirit has always been difficult to explain in my opinion. It is no wonder that the concept of the Holy Spirit is different as held by individual Christians or different sects. I think one commonly held attribute is that the Holy Spirit can be just about anywhere, touching the hearts of people. But this is a topic that is really worthy of its own thread.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 21, 2018 10:30:36 GMT
so yes, Jesus is God but so is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. don't worry if you can't comprehend that as no one can fully understand God even though some of us can grasp it a bit more than others etc.
The bible tells us that no one can understand god, period. No exceptions, no 'some a bit more than others'. To claim in any sense to 'know' god is hubristic, if not a downright sin. Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 New Century Version (NCV) We Cannot Understand All God Does 16 I tried to understand all that happens on earth. I saw how busy people are, working day and night and hardly ever sleeping. 17 I also saw all that God has done. Nobody can understand what God does here on earth. No matter how hard people try to understand it, they cannot. Even if wise people say they understand, they cannot; no one can really understand it.
(Apologies for that awful 'new' translation, but I wanted this to be as plain as possible.) This is another popular and worn-out Christian dodge: God is incomprehensible to man; but some men can 'know' him better than others. Once again--you cannot have it both ways. There is no such thing as 'some' incomprehensibility. God and his ways are either unknowable to mankind or they are not. If you claim to 'understand' god at all, you are saying that what your literally true book plainly states is not, in fact, the truth. The simple truth is, that you no more actually understand the whole Trinity concept any more than anyone else; but it's vital to your standing as a supposed defender of the faith to claim otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 21, 2018 11:47:44 GMT
... God and his ways are either unknowable to mankind or they are not. ... That is just your expectation of simplicity run amok again. How many times in your life have you been told that few things are simple? Few things are black and white? Apparently not enough. For one thing I think you missed the day we discussed that Ecclesiastes is not "Simon." Unlike other books in the Bible where the author says he received the word of the lord, Ecclesiastes merely says that he pondered things in his own heart. So "Simon" didn't say. Are you familiar with the game "Simon Says"? I don't mean the computer tone game that came out later. Another thing is that the Holy Spirit can enlighten anyone as much as it wants and they receive, although I do not suppose it will make gods out of anyone.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 21, 2018 12:01:12 GMT
... God and his ways are either unknowable to mankind or they are not. ... That is just your expectation of simplicity run amok again. How many times in your life have you been told that few things are simple? Few things are black and white? Apparently not enough. For one thing I think you missed the day we discussed that Ecclesiastes is not "Simon." Unlike other books in the Bible where the author says he received the word of the lord, Ecclesiastes merely says that he pondered things in his own heart. So "Simon" didn't say. Are you familiar with the game "Simon Says"? I don't mean the computer tone game that came out later. Another thing is that the Holy Spirit can enlighten anyone as much as it wants and they receive, although I do not suppose it will make gods out of anyone. Get over it, Arlon. Your endless twitterings about how one or another portion of the bible is true when it suits you and not true when it doesn't, and this biblical personage says 'this', which is then contradicted by another biblical personage saying 'that', and your cherry-picking which passage best suits what you think you're positing as logical rebuttal at any given moment is completely wearisome by this time. I don't know which is the bigger mass of internal contradiction--the bible, or your posts. Your posts certainly do go to prove that the bible is such a massive set of contradictions that it can be readily manipulated by anyone for virtually any purpose they see fit, and to back any argument they choose to posit. Some things are 'black and white', dear. Apparently the grownups who dealt with you felt the need to shelter you from this. Your bible and the religions formed around it are quite clear: the ways and mind of god are unknowable to man. Of course, like you, they also like to flip that narrative to 'but sometimes they are knowable' whenever it suits their need to have it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 21, 2018 12:11:51 GMT
That is just your expectation of simplicity run amok again. How many times in your life have you been told that few things are simple? Few things are black and white? Apparently not enough. For one thing I think you missed the day we discussed that Ecclesiastes is not "Simon." Unlike other books in the Bible where the author says he received the word of the lord, Ecclesiastes merely says that he pondered things in his own heart. So "Simon" didn't say. Are you familiar with the game "Simon Says"? I don't mean the computer tone game that came out later. Another thing is that the Holy Spirit can enlighten anyone as much as it wants and they receive, although I do not suppose it will make gods out of anyone. Get over it, Arlon. Your endless twitterings about how one or another portion of the bible is true when it suits you and not true when it doesn't, and this biblical personage says 'this', which is then contradicted by another biblical personage saying 'that', and your cherry-picking which passage best suits what you think you're positing as logical rebuttal at any given moment is completely wearisome by this time. I don't know which is the bigger mass of internal contradiction--the bible, or your posts. Your posts certainly do go to prove that the bible is such a massive set of contradictions that it can be readily manipulated by anyone for virtually any purpose they see fit, and to back any argument they choose to posit. Some things are 'black and white', dear. Apparently the grownups who dealt with you felt the need to shelter you from this. Your bible and the religions formed around it are quite clear: the ways and mind of god are unknowable to man. Of course, like you, they also like to flip that narrative to 'but sometimes they are knowable' whenever it suits their need to have it that way. I have not contradicted anything. I have shown how a believer might gain more insight into the nature of a trinity. I have allowed that it doesn't make the believer equal to god or omniscient. There is no contradiction is this. Your expectation of simplicity is obviously the problem.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 21, 2018 14:43:35 GMT
Get over it, Arlon. Your endless twitterings about how one or another portion of the bible is true when it suits you and not true when it doesn't, and this biblical personage says 'this', which is then contradicted by another biblical personage saying 'that', and your cherry-picking which passage best suits what you think you're positing as logical rebuttal at any given moment is completely wearisome by this time. I don't know which is the bigger mass of internal contradiction--the bible, or your posts. Your posts certainly do go to prove that the bible is such a massive set of contradictions that it can be readily manipulated by anyone for virtually any purpose they see fit, and to back any argument they choose to posit. Some things are 'black and white', dear. Apparently the grownups who dealt with you felt the need to shelter you from this. Your bible and the religions formed around it are quite clear: the ways and mind of god are unknowable to man. Of course, like you, they also like to flip that narrative to 'but sometimes they are knowable' whenever it suits their need to have it that way. I have not contradicted anything. I have shown how a believer might gain more insight into the nature of a trinity. I have allowed that it doesn't make the believer equal to god or omniscient. There is no contradiction is this. Your expectation of simplicity is obviously the problem. >yawn<...how many times have we heard this contradictory rigamarole already?
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 8:37:09 GMT
No, the original question was asking what makes Christianity different. The ressurection of Christ as a concept was the answer given, and it in fact does differentiate Christianity from other religions. So you too are setting up a straw man with elements that are not in the original question asked and the original answer given. But I have a question of my own. In this thread three people, who are non-Christian and possibly arheists all have gone off on tangents and morphed the original question into something else, about proving the truth of Christian claims. Why has this happened? You bring up a different subject than the original question. I made no such case to prove Jesus as the Son of God from fictional accounts or otherwise. I asked a question about Harry Potter as an analogy about differentiation. It was by design that I chose a fictional example. I am surprised that you missed the point in my doing so. My point is that if you can differentiate groups in a fictional account such as in Harry Potter books that you can do the same thing with religions even if you believe their claims are similarly fictional. That question is NOT my question, nor has it been for some other posters. What makes Jesus the son of God? It is a simply asked question yet is being digressed. I'm not interested in the theological history of what makes Christianity different from other religions. I really don't care what your question is. You made a response arguing with what I posted as if I was wrong in my argument. I was correct and like others you have gone off on a tangent. It is something in common with politicians don't answer the question at hand but deflect to a different question or answer. The only reason I joined this thread was to state that clusium's answer about what differentiates Christianity from other religions was not circular. My suggestion is to start another thread if this is what you wish to discuss. If you are not interested in what differentiates Christianity from other religions you shouldn't have joined a discussion that was about that, and really only that subject.
|
|