|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 8:39:28 GMT
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. This thread is just fine to answer the question, because it is still relevant to RFS and the topic.
If that is a commonly held attribute, it still doesn't answer the question about what the holy spirit really is and where it comes from and what it connects too? That would involve God right and that is not tangible right?
Once again, if this is the subject you wish to discuss start another thread, or try to discuss it with others here. I have said all I am interested in saying on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 9:29:48 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' 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'. You appear to have missed the point I was making, or at least ignore it. The answer rendered is not circular unless you conflate another question with the original question, what I earlier called making assumptions. The second question is basically "Are the claims that differentiate Christianity from others true and valid?" You are assuming that the answer given was actually being given to this second question, which wasn't even asked. Perhaps it was intended to be asked in the original question, but if so it certainly was not clearly set forth.
If when I read "Gone With the Wind" somebody had asked me to differentiate between Ashley Wilkes and Rhett Butler I could have set forth several differences. Does it matter if they are fictional characters to do this? No they can be set apart. It is the same with religions. "Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection" is a concept that materially sets Christianity apart from other religions. It doesn't matter if any of this proven, or totally made up, it still differentiates Christianity due to the concept of redemption for sin. That is why the answer rendered on its own is not circular. There was no "I believe Jesus is the Son of God because the Bible says so." You have added that as a straw man that you then strike down.
Clusium was said to be so indoctrinated that she could not see why her answer was circular.. It appears to me that the problem really is with atheists who are so steeped in a need to argue that theism is wrong that they seem to be unable to render their own discussion without resorting to an argument about the validity of God, or other religious beliefs. That is what you and others have been doing here. It is if you are what many atheists claim religious people suffer from, blinded by an obsessive belief. You seem to have to turn everything around to an argument against the validity of theistic beliefs. I have just rendered my arguments objectively, not making a case for or against the actual divinity of Jesus. Your last comment is basically just an appeal to emotion, and totally off the subject. So from the question posed, you and others simply see this as a launch board to level any argument that comes to mind as a rant against Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 22, 2018 11:57:19 GMT
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. You can't even provide solid and concrete proof of what this confounded and confused trinity is, NO ONE CAN, without falling back onto conceptual and discordant beliefs that only hold value to the holder and are ultimately meaningless. And please don't tell me that they do have meaning either, because ALL meaning is abstract and open to interpretation, just like the selective reasoning that has already been pointed out to you. Of course they have little or no meaning to you. It requires the Holy Spirit reveal anything to you. Who told you just anyone off the street could know what the Bible is driving at? You need to talk to leaders with the Holy Spirit, their congregation might be able to help you, or receive revelation yourself from the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 22, 2018 12:24:35 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. One which these religious nutjobs always have difficulty defending. I wonder why? It's pretty difficult to defend hot air .
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 22, 2018 12:51:55 GMT
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. Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.Clusium's response of 'the passion, death and resurrection of Christ' as proof of Christ's divinity and thus the truth of the Christian biblical narrative over and above any other religious narrative is precisely that. Clusium seeks to begin his defense of the 'truth' of these premises by stating the outcome of them, i.e. Christ's passion, death, etc. As stated in the definition above, this is circular logic. Anything he may have added to that central point is tangential and doesn't detract from the fact that this initial statement comprises classic Christian circular reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 13:13:17 GMT
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. Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.Clusium's response of 'the passion, death and resurrection of Christ' as proof of Christ's divinity and thus the truth of the Christian biblical narrative over and above any other religious narrative is precisely that. Clusium seeks to begin his defense of the 'truth' of these premises by stating the outcome of them, i.e. Christ's passion, death, etc. As stated in the definition above, this is circular logic. Anything he may have added to that central point is tangential and doesn't detract from the fact that is initial statement comprises classic Christian circular reasoning. She answered your question about what differentiated Christianity from other religions. The problem here is that all she gave as an answer was 'The passion, death and resurrection of Christ" and nothing else. You immediately claimed this was circular, which it was not as per the definition you have provided, rather needlessly as she and I both know what circular reasoning entails. She did not claim her answer as a proof of the divinity of Christ. She did not make a claim that Christianity was true. So Like goz and toasted cheese you have created a straw man to attack. Let us suppose that your straw man is actually what she stated, and she actually had claimed that Christ's passion, death and resurrection were proof of His divinity and therefore proof of Christianity being true. This really would not be circular reasoning either as she did not complete the circle and then claim that because Christianity is true and correct Christ is divine.
Actually your attempt to make your own straw man circular reasoning is fatally flawed.You appear to claim that Christ's death is the "outcome" of Christianity as in a conclusion, so she is starting with the end of an argument as per the definition. Christ's death may have been the conclusion of his earthy mission, but not a conclusion in the sense stated in the definition. She was answering a question about why Christianity is different. Under your straw man her answer would be not only to set Christianity apart from other religions, but do so by claiming it is true. That makes her comment about Christ a premise under the definition provided and not a conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 22, 2018 14:31:39 GMT
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.Clusium's response of 'the passion, death and resurrection of Christ' as proof of Christ's divinity and thus the truth of the Christian biblical narrative over and above any other religious narrative is precisely that. Clusium seeks to begin his defense of the 'truth' of these premises by stating the outcome of them, i.e. Christ's passion, death, etc. As stated in the definition above, this is circular logic. Anything he may have added to that central point is tangential and doesn't detract from the fact that is initial statement comprises classic Christian circular reasoning. She answered your question about what differentiated Christianity from other religions. The problem here is that all she gave as an answer was 'The passion, death and resurrection of Christ" and nothing else. You immediately claimed this was circular, which it was not as per the definition you have provided, rather needlessly as she and I both know what circular reasoning entails. She did not claim her answer as a proof of the divinity of Christ. She did not make a claim that Christianity was true. So Like goz and toasted cheese you have created a straw man to attack. Let us suppose that your straw man is actually what she stated, and she actually had claimed that Christ's passion, death and resurrection were proof of His divinity and therefore proof of Christianity being true. This really would not be circular reasoning either as she did not complete the circle and then claim that because Christianity is true and correct Christ is divine.
Actually your attempt to make your own straw man circular reasoning is fatally flawed.You appear to claim that Christ's death is the "outcome" of Christianity as in a conclusion, so she is starting with the end of an argument as per the definition. Christ's death may have been the conclusion of his earthy mission, but not a conclusion in the sense stated in the definition.
As long as one is claiming that Christianity is different from other religions in pointing out one of its beliefs as the point of differentiation, I see nothing wrong with that. Each religion has some unique point. I do believe that there are certain things that differentiate Christianity from other religions, just as there are certain things in other religions that also make them different from other religions. As far as I know, humans have been claimed to be resurrected from death in certain religions but very few popular ones have killed the god and resurrected him/her. So I do agree with you that resurrection of Christ is a differentiating point of Christianity although not a proof by any means that Christianity is the true religion (which you readily agree yourself). Interestingly, some other theistic people may reject Christianity out-rightly because of the very death of Christ as they would claim if a god dies then he/she is not a god at all. But that's another point for a different discussion altogether and still doesn't take away the fact that Christianity's selling point on this matter is unique at least among famous religions.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 22, 2018 15:02:12 GMT
She answered your question about what differentiated Christianity from other religions. The problem here is that all she gave as an answer was 'The passion, death and resurrection of Christ" and nothing else. You immediately claimed this was circular, which it was not as per the definition you have provided, rather needlessly as she and I both know what circular reasoning entails. She did not claim her answer as a proof of the divinity of Christ. She did not make a claim that Christianity was true. So Like goz and toasted cheese you have created a straw man to attack.
Let us suppose that your straw man is actually what she stated, and she actually had claimed that Christ's passion, death and resurrection were proof of His divinity and therefore proof of Christianity being true. This really would not be circular reasoning either as she did not complete the circle and then claim that because Christianity is true and correct Christ is divine.
Actually your attempt to make your own straw man circular reasoning is fatally flawed.You appear to claim that Christ's death is the "outcome" of Christianity as in a conclusion, so she is starting with the end of an argument as per the definition. Christ's death may have been the conclusion of his earthy mission, but not a conclusion in the sense stated in the definition. She was answering a question about why Christianity is different. Under your straw man her answer would be not only to set Christianity apart from other religions, but do so by claiming it is true. That makes her comment about Christ a premise under the definition provided and not a conclusion.
She did not claim her answer as a proof of the divinity of Christ. She did not make a claim that Christianity was true. So Like goz and toasted cheese you have created a straw man to attack.
Okay; assuming that Clusium is not a believer in the divinity of Christ, perhaps it might be wisdom to state this at the outset. If one is going to play devil's advocate, arguing for the reality of a premise which one doesn't believe oneself, but fails to identify this, it's fair for those entering into the debate to make an assumption that the person they're debating in all likelihood supports the key position they're defending. Let's just call this basic good sportsmanship for want of a better term--I have no problem with, and feel it's only fair, to state my position as an agnostic at the outset, and can see no good reason why my opponent should not do likewise.
Let us suppose that your straw man is actually what she stated, and she actually had claimed that Christ's passion, death and resurrection were proof of His divinity and therefore proof of Christianity being true. This really would not be circular reasoning either as she did not complete the circle and then claim that because Christianity is true and correct Christ is divine.
I'll fold in my response to that as an adjunct to my previous statement--nothing in Clusium's stated position would lead the reader to think that her beliefs are other than that of Christ's divinity, so if she is the victim of a 'strawman' attack, she has in part set herself up for this.
Actually your attempt to make your own straw man circular reasoning is fatally flawed.You appear to claim that Christ's death is the "outcome" of Christianity as in a conclusion, so she is starting with the end of an argument as per the definition. Christ's death may have been the conclusion of his earthy mission, but not a conclusion in the sense stated in the definition. She was answering a question about why Christianity is different. Under your straw man her answer would be not only to set Christianity apart from other religions, but do so by claiming it is true. That makes her comment about Christ a premise under the definition provided and not a conclusion.
You are simply engaging in a smokescreen on this. To state that Christianity is true because of the martyrdom of Christ is circular, whether or no his death was the 'end of his earthly mission'. The claim of its being 'different' is clearly not the only implied claim being made. Once again, you are using the dodge of 'she didn't say she believed this was true', but her prior postings certainly lead the way for any onlooker to make the assumption that she does, in fact, believe and accept the truth of the Christian religion above any other.
Once again, this is typical of 'stealth christian debating' tactics: rather than stating their opening position honestly, this type of christian debater hides behind a feigned indifference to belief--thereby leaving themself the out of saying "well, you're creating a strawman by claiming I'm a believer, when I've never said I was."
There may be no Marquess of Queensberry's Rules on this type of internet debate; but the debater who won't make his opening position clear at the outset invites misapprehension, strawmanning, and in general tends to look a bit suspect as to just what he or she may be about.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 16:13:49 GMT
She answered your question about what differentiated Christianity from other religions. The problem here is that all she gave as an answer was 'The passion, death and resurrection of Christ" and nothing else. You immediately claimed this was circular, which it was not as per the definition you have provided, rather needlessly as she and I both know what circular reasoning entails. She did not claim her answer as a proof of the divinity of Christ. She did not make a claim that Christianity was true. So Like goz and toasted cheese you have created a straw man to attack.
Let us suppose that your straw man is actually what she stated, and she actually had claimed that Christ's passion, death and resurrection were proof of His divinity and therefore proof of Christianity being true. This really would not be circular reasoning either as she did not complete the circle and then claim that because Christianity is true and correct Christ is divine.
Actually your attempt to make your own straw man circular reasoning is fatally flawed.You appear to claim that Christ's death is the "outcome" of Christianity as in a conclusion, so she is starting with the end of an argument as per the definition. Christ's death may have been the conclusion of his earthy mission, but not a conclusion in the sense stated in the definition. She was answering a question about why Christianity is different. Under your straw man her answer would be not only to set Christianity apart from other religions, but do so by claiming it is true. That makes her comment about Christ a premise under the definition provided and not a conclusion. She did not claim her answer as a proof of the divinity of Christ. She did not make a claim that Christianity was true. So Like goz and toasted cheese you have created a straw man to attack.Okay; assuming that Clusium is not a believer in the divinity of Christ, perhaps it might be wisdom to state this at the outset. If one is going to play devil's advocate, arguing for the reality of a premise which one doesn't believe oneself, but fails to identify this, it's fair for those entering into the debate to make an assumption that the person they're debating in all likelihood supports the key position they're defending. Let's just call this basic good sportsmanship for want of a better term--I have no problem with, and feel it's only fair, to state my position as an agnostic at the outset, and can see no good reason why my opponent should not do likewise. Let us suppose that your straw man is actually what she stated, and she actually had claimed that Christ's passion, death and resurrection were proof of His divinity and therefore proof of Christianity being true. This really would not be circular reasoning either as she did not complete the circle and then claim that because Christianity is true and correct Christ is divine.I'll fold in my response to that as an adjunct to my previous statement--nothing in Clusium's stated position would lead the reader to think that her beliefs are other than that of Christ's divinity, so if she is the victim of a 'strawman' attack, she has in part set herself up for this. Actually your attempt to make your own straw man circular reasoning is fatally flawed.You appear to claim that Christ's death is the "outcome" of Christianity as in a conclusion, so she is starting with the end of an argument as per the definition. Christ's death may have been the conclusion of his earthy mission, but not a conclusion in the sense stated in the definition. She was answering a question about why Christianity is different. Under your straw man her answer would be not only to set Christianity apart from other religions, but do so by claiming it is true. That makes her comment about Christ a premise under the definition provided and not a conclusion.You are simply engaging in a smokescreen on this. To state that Christianity is true because of the martyrdom of Christ is circular, whether or no his death was the 'end of his earthly mission'. The claim of its being 'different' is clearly not the only implied claim being made. Once again, you are using the dodge of 'she didn't say she believed this was true', but her prior postings certainly lead the way for any onlooker to make the assumption that she does, in fact, believe and accept the truth of the Christian religion above any other. Once again, this is typical of 'stealth christian debating' tactics: rather than stating their opening position honestly, this type of christian debater hides behind a feigned indifference to belief--thereby leaving themself the out of saying "well, you're creating a strawman by claiming I'm a believer, when I've never said I was." There may be no Marquess of Queensberry's Rules on this type of internet debate; but the debater who won't make his opening position clear at the outset invites misapprehension, strawmanning, and in general tends to look a bit suspect as to just what he or she may be about. "Okay; assuming that Clusium is not a believer in the divinity of Christ, perhaps it might be wisdom to state this at the outset. If one is going to play devil's advocate, arguing for the reality of a premise which one doesn't believe oneself, but fails to identify this, it's fair for those entering into the debate to make an assumption that the person they're debating in all likelihood supports the key position they're defending. Let's just call this basic good sportsmanship for want of a better term--I have no problem with, and feel it's only fair, to state my position as an agnostic at the outset, and can see no good reason why my opponent should not do likewise."
No, it is not fair to make assumptions if you are going to argue about the fine points of logical fallacies. Often assumptions are perceptions that are not correct. It is only fair to actually argue against what is actually stated. I think it is was obvious from the posts made before you posed your question what clusium basically believes. She consistently has posted as a believing Catholic in this thread and for the entire time I have seen her posts for years. Have you really forgotten the interactions the two of you had just three days ago?
clusium: Her Son Is God, that is why there are "metaphysics" here.
amyghost: I wish Christians could make up their minds about whether Jesus is god, god's son, or some kind of freakish mélange. It doesn't really add to a religion's credibility when its varying sects can't even agree on a basic point like that.
clusium: God Is Wholly Different than His Creation. Mary is not a divinity. She is the Highest of all the Saints, because she Is Our Lord's Blessed Mother.
clusium: Actually, Christians did make up their minds at the Council of Nicea: The Lord Jesus IS GOD. Only post Reformation, did a few sects again denied His Divinity, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses & the Mormons, etc.
Yeah, I have really serious doubts about what she believes.
"I'll fold in my response to that as an adjunct to my previous statement--nothing in Clusium's stated position would lead the reader to think that her beliefs are other than that of Christ's divinity, so if she is the victim of a 'strawman' attack, she has in part set herself up for this."
And once again this is interjecting your own assumptions into the mix. No, she did not set herself up for a straw man attack. You concocted this to avoid admitting that she had not used circular reasoning.
"You are simply engaging in a smokescreen on this. To state that Christianity is true because of the martyrdom of Christ is circular, whether or no his death was the 'end of his earthly mission'. The claim of its being 'different' is clearly not the only implied claim being made. Once again, you are using the dodge of 'she didn't say she believed this was true', but her prior postings certainly lead the way for any onlooker to make the assumption that she does, in fact, believe and accept the truth of the Christian religion above any other."
And here you simply are adding elements not in her answer. She didn't say Christianity was true. If you have to resort to making claims of something being "implied" you are once again interjecting your own assumptions and conclusions into this. You cannot bring her other statements into this as they were in response to different comments or questions. You are using the word "assumption" quite a lot...and that is not a fair way to debate unless it is posed to the other person directly for clarification and response. And then you state this gem, which apparently is the basis of your false claim about circular reasoning.
"To state that Christianity is true because of the martyrdom of Christ is circular"...just how is this circular? It is very linear to me, even if not correct. It would be an opinion, whether right or wrong. It is saying "I believe in "A" and therefore I think it follows that "B' is correct. You can argue that you disagree, and you do not think this logically follows. But how can it be considered circular?
"Once again, this is typical of 'stealth christian debating' tactics: rather than stating their opening position honestly, this type of christian debater hides behind a feigned indifference to belief--thereby leaving themself the out of saying "well, you're creating a strawman by claiming I'm a believer, when I've never said I was."
This did not take place at the start of a discussion. It was ongoing already.
"There may be no Marquess of Queensberry's Rules on this type of internet debate; but the debater who won't make his opening position clear at the outset invites misapprehension, strawmanning, and in general tends to look a bit suspect as to just what he or she may be about."
Again your question was not posed at the onset, as in a debate. I don't think she attempted any of what your are implying, such as attempting to cover her thoughts or beliefs. I think she was honestly upfront.
But you avoided the part of my post where I said that even if all your assumptions about what clusium was thinking or trying to say were correct, that Christ is divine and that Christianity is valid and its claims true, that she was not guilty of circular reasoning. That really was my only point in even entering this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Sept 22, 2018 16:44:06 GMT
She answered your question about what differentiated Christianity from other religions. The problem here is that all she gave as an answer was 'The passion, death and resurrection of Christ" and nothing else. You immediately claimed this was circular, which it was not as per the definition you have provided, rather needlessly as she and I both know what circular reasoning entails. She did not claim her answer as a proof of the divinity of Christ. She did not make a claim that Christianity was true. So Like goz and toasted cheese you have created a straw man to attack. Let us suppose that your straw man is actually what she stated, and she actually had claimed that Christ's passion, death and resurrection were proof of His divinity and therefore proof of Christianity being true. This really would not be circular reasoning either as she did not complete the circle and then claim that because Christianity is true and correct Christ is divine.
Actually your attempt to make your own straw man circular reasoning is fatally flawed.You appear to claim that Christ's death is the "outcome" of Christianity as in a conclusion, so she is starting with the end of an argument as per the definition. Christ's death may have been the conclusion of his earthy mission, but not a conclusion in the sense stated in the definition.
As long as one is claiming that Christianity is different from other religions in pointing out one of its beliefs as the point of differentiation, I see nothing wrong with that. Each religion has some unique point. I do believe that there are certain things that differentiate Christianity from other religions, just as there are certain things in other religions that also make them different from other religions. As far as I know, humans have been claimed to be resurrected from death in certain religions but very few popular ones have killed the god and resurrected him/her. So I do agree with you that resurrection of Christ is a differentiating point of Christianity although not a proof by any means that Christianity is the true religion (which you readily agree yourself). Interestingly, some other theistic people may reject Christianity out-rightly because of the very death of Christ as they would claim if a god dies then he/she is not a god at all. But that's another point for a different discussion altogether and still doesn't take away the fact that Christianity's selling point on this matter is unique at least among famous religions. Yes, your comments are all interesting and pertinent. As you point out I think in most traditions a god cannot suffer death. Even in Christianity this is somewhat the case due to the concept of the Trinity. Jesus dies but His father does not, nor does the Holy Spirit. This points out what in my opinion is one of the greatest difficulties in Christianity, to describe the nature of God. The concept of the Trinity basically difies being clearly described or in my opinion even understood.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Sept 23, 2018 12:28:34 GMT
Once again, if this is the subject you wish to discuss start another thread, or try to discuss it with others here. I have said all I am interested in saying on the subject.Yes, as I thought, because you can't. That's the gist of it. When confronted with a point-blank, plain question regarding scriptural inconsistencies or self-evident logical fallacies, out comes the word salad and the usual 'so-and-so wasn't really defending the literal truth of the bible, and never said they were a believer anyway'--even though the thrust of most of their posts pretty clearly points to their being one. And then there's the tried and true formula of spray painting a heavy coat of Divine Mystery over the subject, because of course you ignorant non-believers aren't capable of getting any of this anyway. And if the listener doesn't buy into that, well, they're just going to take their ball and go home .
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 23, 2018 13:03:33 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? Re the bolded part: I don't know. I don't know if there are other religions where a central character died, rose from the death, and by doing so did something good for humanity. I don't know every religion in the world. BUT: The original question was whether Christianity is "something other than "human-created" and less "fallible" than others". To this, the answer is no. Because the story about Christ's passion, death and resurrection is human-created, and therefore as fallible as any other religion or belief system. The only way for it to be something more than human-created would be if there was solid, factual evidence for Christ's resurrection (or all other events from the Bible). There isn't.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 23, 2018 21:19:03 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? Re the bolded part: I don't know. I don't know if there are other religions where a central character died, rose from the death, and by doing so did something good for humanity. I don't know every religion in the world. BUT: The original question was whether Christianity is "something other than "human-created" and less "fallible" than others". To this, the answer is no. Because the story about Christ's passion, death and resurrection is human-created, and therefore as fallible as any other religion or belief system. The only way for it to be something more than human-created would be if there was solid, factual evidence for Christ's resurrection (or all other events from the Bible). There isn't. Yes. ...and with this 'assumption' Geode took over the thread in the tried and true way of Christian apologists. [/b][/quote] [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 23, 2018 22:09:56 GMT
Re the bolded part: I don't know. I don't know if there are other religions where a central character died, rose from the death, and by doing so did something good for humanity. I don't know every religion in the world. BUT: The original question was whether Christianity is "something other than "human-created" and less "fallible" than others". To this, the answer is no. Because the story about Christ's passion, death and resurrection is human-created, and therefore as fallible as any other religion or belief system. The only way for it to be something more than human-created would be if there was solid, factual evidence for Christ's resurrection (or all other events from the Bible). There isn't. Yes. ...and with this 'assumption' Geode took over the thread in the tried and true way of Christian apologists. To be fair: If Christianity really was the only religion where a character dies, rises from the dead and by doing this gives humanity a way to obtain "salvation" of some kind, then Christianity would be unique in that way. But I don't know if it is. And of course, it doesn't say anything about the validity of the claims of Christianity. Not to mention that the only thing Christianity can bring salvation to is the "fallen nature" or "original sin" of humans, which is irrelevant for people who don't believe in the God of Abraham. In other words: Christianity solves a problem that wouldn't exist without its God. And since this God probably doesn't exist... My opinion: Maybe Christianity is unique in its requirements for adherents; but it's not more or less true than other religions.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2018 10:48:11 GMT
That's the gist of it. When confronted with a point-blank, plain question regarding scriptural inconsistencies or self-evident logical fallacies, out comes the word salad and the usual 'so-and-so wasn't really defending the literal truth of the bible, and never said they were a believer anyway'--even though the thrust of most of their posts pretty clearly points to their being one. And then there's the tried and true formula of spray painting a heavy coat of Divine Mystery over the subject, because of course you ignorant non-believers aren't capable of getting any of this anyway. And if the listener doesn't buy into that, well, they're just going to take their ball and go home . If they keep the enigma alive and well, that them gives them an out to explain away why it is all so complex and mysterious. Bully for us for not having what they have. I guess their ignorance gives new meaning to bliss. I guess that ball of phony belief must be pretty precious. < Photo Gollum >
Tricksy Hobbitses! False!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2018 11:49:57 GMT
Tricksy Hobbitses! False! My Precious! What is false? In the Halls of Moria Gandalf starts reading from a book: They have taken the bridge and the second hall. We have barred the gates but cannot hold them for long. The ground shakes, drums... drums in the deep. We cannot get out. A shadow lurks in the dark. We can not get out... they are coming. [*]-----===[*]===-----[*]
Aragorn: Are you frightened? Frodo: Yes. Aragorn: Not nearly frightened enough. I know what hunts you. [*]-----===[*]===-----[*]
Boromir: One does not simply walk into Mordor. [*]-----===[*]===-----[*]
Galadriel: It all began with the forging of the Great Rings. Three were given to the Elves; immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven, to the Dwarf Lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else desire power. For within these rings was bound the strength and the will to govern over each race. But they were all of them deceived ...
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2018 12:35:53 GMT
In the Halls of Moria Gandalf starts reading from a book: They have taken the bridge and the second hall. We have barred the gates but cannot hold them for long. The ground shakes, drums... drums in the deep. We cannot get out. A shadow lurks in the dark. We can not get out... they are coming. [*]-----===[*]===-----[*]
Aragorn: Are you frightened? Frodo: Yes. Aragorn: Not nearly frightened enough. I know what hunts you. [*]-----===[*]===-----[*]
Boromir: One does not simply walk into Mordor. [*]-----===[*]===-----[*]
Galadriel: It all began with the forging of the Great Rings. Three were given to the Elves; immortal, wisest and fairest of all beings. Seven, to the Dwarf Lords, great miners and craftsmen of the mountain halls. And nine, nine rings were gifted to the race of Men, who above all else desire power. For within these rings was bound the strength and the will to govern over each race. But they were all of them deceived ... Yes, I know you have been deceived by your own precious beliefs Arlon, so what is this typical deflection all about then? It's obvious you don't know how this game is played. You're supposed to reply with movie quotes.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2018 12:40:38 GMT
It's obvious you don't know how this game is played. You're supposed to reply with movie quotes. Not interested in precious frivolity at present. Are people typically kind enough not to tell you that you're as boring as you are bored? Maybe you could try reading books.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Sept 24, 2018 12:57:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 24, 2018 20:18:28 GMT
Unsurprisingly, this is a biased article that doesn't offer any evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Thomas was probably smarter than the intended audience of this article.
|
|