|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 19, 2020 13:25:15 GMT
Communication can fail for a variety of reasons. A major reason it fails lately is that people are not trying to communicate. They are trying to dominate. They do not understand much themselves because they merely copy word for word things from their herd. They obviously cannot help anyone else understand what they do not. So communication fails. A stunning example before the pandemic was whether Trump offered a "quid pro quo" to Ukraine and why Biden's rather obvious quid pro quo was not delivered instead by any of the other people so certain there was no implication regarding Hunter Biden. The political process in the United States had become a farce devoid of communication skills. I digress somewhat. Yes, quite a non-sequitur. But go on. One notes that it is always those others, the necessarily stupid folk disagreeing with so much of which you say, which exercises you so much, who inevitably have 'the problem' - never someone who, say, argues with dictionaries and thinks he wins, or doesn't accept the work of Darwin or The Theory of Relativity. We've been through this before and I have pointed out to you before how full the Bible is with talk of a god which holds strong opinions, and with attributed human characteristics such as love, anger and jealousy - something evident, even to those without advanced reading skills. I can only report what the Bible says. It does not often see god as just a code of ethics, as something entirely abstract, nor as a Spinozian 'essence of nature' - things which, in turn, you have claimed the deity is. On the contrary, if one attributes an active and intervening 'will' to a code of ethics say, then the effort is just as meaningless. A point which you do not address. To which the reply is the same: that one can be sure that colour exists in so far that it can be independently verified, so that it is a false equivalence; but that ultimately one cannot be sure that a blind person would know what it is for sure, or not, when explained since there is no way of validating anything. I hope that helps. But it didn't last time. I am sorry to have to report that all the attempts to develop your reading ability to a point that might make religion accessible to you have failed. I'm sure you will continue to berate people who believe in a god of your own definition, not theirs. You are determined to have such a childish and simplistic view of a god and that no one is any wiser or more sophisticated. You attempts to use terminology are your own and do not really apply as you think they do. The existence of green is easily "verified" by people who can see colors. That has nothing to do with the fact that some people cannot verify its existence, and yet it exists.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2020 16:43:07 GMT
Yes, quite a non-sequitur. But go on. One notes that it is always those others, the necessarily stupid folk disagreeing with so much of which you say, which exercises you so much, who inevitably have 'the problem' - never someone who, say, argues with dictionaries and thinks he wins, or doesn't accept the work of Darwin or The Theory of Relativity. We've been through this before and I have pointed out to you before how full the Bible is with talk of a god which holds strong opinions, and with attributed human characteristics such as love, anger and jealousy - something evident, even to those without advanced reading skills. I can only report what the Bible says. It does not often see god as just a code of ethics, as something entirely abstract, nor as a Spinozian 'essence of nature' - things which, in turn, you have claimed the deity is. On the contrary, if one attributes an active and intervening 'will' to a code of ethics say, then the effort is just as meaningless. A point which you do not address. To which the reply is the same: that one can be sure that colour exists in so far that it can be independently verified, so that it is a false equivalence; but that ultimately one cannot be sure that a blind person would know what it is for sure, or not, when explained since there is no way of validating anything. I hope that helps. But it didn't last time. I am sorry to have to report that all the attempts to develop your reading ability to a point that might make religion accessible to you have failed. I'm sure you will continue to berate people who believe in a god of your own definition, not theirs. You are determined to have such a childish and simplistic view of a god and that no one is any wiser or more sophisticated. You attempts to use terminology are your own and do not really apply as you think they do. The existence of green is easily "verified" by people who can see colors. That has nothing to do with the fact that some people cannot verify its existence, and yet it exists. As I said already the God of the Bible is clear enough in personification, even for those with low intelligence and poor reading skills. As before I invite any Christian reading this to confirm if they do not consider their god one of Love and compassion, who never the less occasionally is raised to anger, or that the Bible does not describe Him as a jealous deity, or that our image is not famously defined as of His. Ez 26: "And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. This is not to say that one cannot take God as an allegory or metaphor of course; but to deny the anthropomorphism of scripture, right down to the notion of Jesus, er God, or whether wandering round in the very image of God (2 Cor 4:4-7) in the Gospels is daft. As for the colour green I said, just above, that it can readily verified independently; it is the experience of the blind in visualising it that one cannot confirm as accurate which was the point, and so here you seem a little confused. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 20, 2020 11:43:17 GMT
I am sorry to have to report that all the attempts to develop your reading ability to a point that might make religion accessible to you have failed. I'm sure you will continue to berate people who believe in a god of your own definition, not theirs. You are determined to have such a childish and simplistic view of a god and that no one is any wiser or more sophisticated. You attempts to use terminology are your own and do not really apply as you think they do. The existence of green is easily "verified" by people who can see colors. That has nothing to do with the fact that some people cannot verify its existence, and yet it exists. As I said already the God of the Bible is clear enough in personification, even for those with low intelligence and poor reading skills. As before I invite any Christian reading this to confirm if they do not consider their god one of Love and compassion, who never the less occasionally is raised to anger, or that the Bible does not describe Him as a jealous deity, or that our image is not famously defined as of His. Ez 26: "And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. This is not to say that one cannot take God as an allegory or metaphor of course; but to deny the anthropomorphism of scripture, right down to the notion of Jesus, er God, or whether wandering round in the very image of God (2 Cor 4:4-7) in the Gospels is daft. As for the colour green I said, just above, that it can readily verified independently; it is the experience of the blind in visualising it that one cannot confirm as accurate which was the point, and so here you seem a little confused. I hope that helps. Truth be told. And that of course totally invalidates your point that the god cannot be something beyond human form. The human form is merely for description of something with no other close description. We are the "hands" of God, as some politician once pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 20, 2020 18:56:07 GMT
As I said already the God of the Bible is clear enough in personification, even for those with low intelligence and poor reading skills. As before I invite any Christian reading this to confirm if they do not consider their god one of Love and compassion, who never the less occasionally is raised to anger, or that the Bible does not describe Him as a jealous deity, or that our image is not famously defined as of His. Ez 26: "And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. This is not to say that one cannot take God as an allegory or metaphor of course; but to deny the anthropomorphism of scripture, right down to the notion of Jesus, er God, or whether wandering round in the very image of God (2 Cor 4:4-7) in the Gospels is daft. As for the colour green I said, just above, that it can readily verified independently; it is the experience of the blind in visualising it that one cannot confirm as accurate which was the point, and so here you seem a little confused. I hope that helps. Truth be told. And that of course totally invalidates your point that the god cannot be something beyond human form. If only that was a point that I ever made. It is more than God is often seen in anthropomorphic terms, as per the various examples given and not, just as I said above, that it cannot ever be taken an a metaphor or allegory etc. No one ever suggests, especially me, that the First Cause must be properly human and nothing else. The hands of god is a figure of speech. It is hard to reconcile that reading with every example of anthropomorphism in scripture. If the idea of the Almighty being at times a god of love, jealousy, compassion, and anger are indeed just figures of speech, or that we are understand JC as God incarnate, then what is really meant?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 20, 2020 20:57:59 GMT
Yes, quite a non-sequitur. But go on. One notes that it is always those others, the necessarily stupid folk disagreeing with so much of which you say, which exercises you so much, who inevitably have 'the problem' - never someone who, say, argues with dictionaries and thinks he wins, or doesn't accept the work of Darwin or The Theory of Relativity. We've been through this before and I have pointed out to you before how full the Bible is with talk of a god which holds strong opinions, and with attributed human characteristics such as love, anger and jealousy - something evident, even to those without advanced reading skills. I can only report what the Bible says. It does not often see god as just a code of ethics, as something entirely abstract, nor as a Spinozian 'essence of nature' - things which, in turn, you have claimed the deity is. On the contrary, if one attributes an active and intervening 'will' to a code of ethics say, then the effort is just as meaningless. A point which you do not address. To which the reply is the same: that one can be sure that colour exists in so far that it can be independently verified, so that it is a false equivalence; but that ultimately one cannot be sure that a blind person would know what it is for sure, or not, when explained since there is no way of validating anything. I hope that helps. But it didn't last time. I am sorry to have to report that all the attempts to develop your reading ability to a point that might make religion accessible to you have failed. I'm sure you will continue to berate people who believe in a god of your own definition, not theirs. You are determined to have such a childish and simplistic view of a god and that no one is any wiser or more sophisticated. You attempts to use terminology are your own and do not really apply as you think they do. The existence of green is easily "verified" by people who can see colors. That has nothing to do with the fact that some people cannot verify its existence, and yet it exists. What you are really saying here is that you use your view of other poster's reading ability to measure their arguments negatively against your own. ANYONE who disagrees with you has poor reading ability and yet YOU are the one with demonstrated Dunning Kruger syndrome. Many of the posters here attribute your abject illogicality, verbal diarrhea and even rudeness to suffering from this affliction. ( and being an antediluvian silly old fart) You also attribute your predilections and attitudes onto others on here and always fail to give back up to your arguments with any kind of authority other than your own Dunning Krugeresque view of science statistics and evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 20, 2020 23:42:21 GMT
Truth be told. And that of course totally invalidates your point that the god cannot be something beyond human form. The human form is merely for description of something with no other close description. We are the "hands" of God, as some politician once pointed out. But sadly rarely are humans the Body of Christ...especially Christians...but some few do rise above... you’re not one of them. Returning to the drawing board then.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 21, 2020 0:01:55 GMT
FilmFlaneur said: [ full text here] < clips >
- If only that was a point that I ever made.
- The hands of god is a figure of speech.
- It is hard to reconcile that reading with every example of anthropomorphism in scripture.
- the idea of the Almighty being at times a god of love, jealousy, compassion, and anger are indeed just figures of speech
- If only you ever made a point
- As are the few truly anthropomorphic descriptions of "him" in the Bible.
- I'm sure it's difficult for you.
- Why do you say "just" figures of speech? As in the sense of "merely" obviously. Why can't something beyond human not have those traits and better than humans have? I suppose you're going to tell you were not making the argument that an entity with those traits must be human, but I think you were. I think I know why too. You wouldn't like to see it though.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 21, 2020 0:14:52 GMT
goz said: [ full text here] < clips >
- you use your view of other poster's reading ability to measure their arguments
- Many of the posters here attribute your abject illogicality, verbal diarrhea and even rudeness to suffering from this affliction.
- You ... fail to give back up to your arguments with any kind of authority
- Who doesn't?
- And none of you have any authority to do that.
- PKB
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 21, 2020 1:03:46 GMT
goz said: [ full text here] < clips >
- you use your view of other poster's reading ability to measure their arguments
- Many of the posters here attribute your abject illogicality, verbal diarrhea and even rudeness to suffering from this affliction.
- You ... fail to give back up to your arguments with any kind of authority
- Who doesn't?
- And none of you have any authority to do that.
- PKB
1. I don't. I take what they say as a measure of many things including comprehension, intelligence knowledge and sometimes wit! 2. Yes. we do because you exhibit ALL the symptoms, as you are doing right now. 3. KGB
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 21, 2020 11:00:16 GMT
goz said: [ full text here] - Who doesn't?
- And none of you have any authority to do that.
- PKB
1. I don't. I take what they say as a measure of many things including comprehension, intelligence knowledge and sometimes wit! 2. Yes. we do because you exhibit ALL the symptoms, as you are doing right now. 3. KGB I share your admiration for independent, creative thought and critical analysis. It's just that you never use any. You are still in elementary school mode, which is to mindlessly repeat things until you build up a foundation of knowledge from which to critically analyze anything. Your own decision making process never really kicked in. Frankly, your foundation base of knowledge never became adequate for you to use it critically. That means you have the faith of a small child and yet think you have nothing so contemptible as "faith" in anything, as if faith is contemptible. Since you never and apparently cannot make your own arguments I read every link you (plural) believe makes your arguments for you. I explain why they do not make your arguments, most recently infant restraint data. Even if I had no foundation in mathematics and science, I do have training and recognized experience in English and logic. You might benefit from that experience by recognizing your "rules" make no sense. Neither do your attempts to "win" by using them. You might also realize that my special training actually avails me of good mathematics, science and logic. Your faith in science blinds you to the facts. Ordinarily there is nothing especially wrong with an elementary school mode of learning. Ordinarily the mistake is to switch to criticism too early rather than too late. Perhaps you know what kind of people I mean. Meanwhile the people who do what they are told without questioning or understanding it can find many types of useful jobs as adults. I have always understood the substantial value of those people in society. But these are not ordinary times. You have become sad orphans without your authorities to guide you. You follow your own bad advice. You (plural generations) haven't taken good guidance in decades. That is especially obvious in the farce of the current political process. We now have people who attempt to enforce their opinions by law much the same way children are typically given opinions they might not (yet) understand. That's why you have so many "rules" in argument you believe others should follow, and yet those rules make no sense.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 21, 2020 20:00:21 GMT
FF: The hands of god is a figure of speech. As are the few truly anthropomorphic descriptions of "him" in the Bible. So when people speak of Jesus as God incarnate etc He was not really, it is all just a figure of speech? Well fancy that! Out goes the Trinity then lol. Have you told them? There is no reason it could not, although that would be an entirely different argument and appears another of your diversions. It appears now however that you are accepting that anthropomorphism appears throughout scripture, so that is one step forward and a QED. I thank you for playing. You supposed wrong. It is good to think, though. I note that no Christian here has replied to make clear that the deity they worship is not a God that at various times has been actually jealous, compassionate, angry and loving etc. That leaves you all by yourself, reaching rather. Arguing that every anthropomorphic reference in the Bible is not to be taken literally is just as insensitive to context (remember that?) as asserting that every one is to be so taken. So then: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." [1 John 9 - 12] Does all this really sound as it is not be to be taken literally? As always, evasion will be noted.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 21, 2020 21:29:05 GMT
1. I don't. I take what they say as a measure of many things including comprehension, intelligence knowledge and sometimes wit! 2. Yes. we do because you exhibit ALL the symptoms, as you are doing right now. 3. KGB I share your admiration for independent, creative thought and critical analysis. It's just that you never use any. You are still in elementary school mode, which is to mindlessly repeat things until you build up a foundation of knowledge from which to critically analyze anything. Your own decision making process never really kicked in. Frankly, your foundation base of knowledge never became adequate for you to use it critically. That means you have the faith of a small child and yet think you have nothing so contemptible as "faith" in anything, as if faith is contemptible. Since you never and apparently cannot make your own arguments I read every link you (plural) believe makes your arguments for you. I explain why they do not make your arguments, most recently infant restraint data. Even if I had no foundation in mathematics and science, I do have training and recognized experience in English and logic. You might benefit from that experience by recognizing your "rules" make no sense. Neither do your attempts to "win" by using them. You might also realize that my special training actually avails me of good mathematics, science and logic. Your faith in science blinds you to the facts. Ordinarily there is nothing especially wrong with an elementary school mode of learning. Ordinarily the mistake is to switch to criticism too early rather than too late. Perhaps you know what kind of people I mean. Meanwhile the people who do what they are told without questioning or understanding it can find many types of useful jobs as adults. I have always understood the substantial value of those people in society. But these are not ordinary times. You have become sad orphans without your authorities to guide you. You follow your own bad advice. You (plural generations) haven't taken good guidance in decades. That is especially obvious in the farce of the current political process. We now have people who attempt to enforce their opinions by law much the same way children are typically given opinions they might not (yet) understand. That's why you have so many "rules" in argument you believe others should follow, and yet those rules make no sense. Didn't they impress on you in debating school that ad hominem is not an actual argument let alone acceptable debating tool? Did you know that everyone who suffers from Dunning Kruger syndrome thinks that they had special training? BTW I don't have faith' in science or anything. I understand it and its uses benefits and limitations. As the cantankerous silly anti-deluvian old fart that you are you forgot to say
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 21, 2020 22:01:22 GMT
FF: The hands of god is a figure of speech. As are the few truly anthropomorphic descriptions of "him" in the Bible. So when people speak of Jesus as God incarnate etc He was not really, it is all just a figure of speech? Well fancy that! Out goes the Trinity then lol. Have you told them? There is no reason it could not, although that would be an entirely different argument and appears another of your diversions. It appears now however that you are accepting that anthropomorphism appears throughout scripture, so that is one step forward and a QED. I thank you for playing. You supposed wrong. It is good to think, though. I note that no Christian here has replied to make clear that the deity they worship is not a God that at various times has been actually jealous, compassionate, angry and loving etc. That leaves you all by yourself, reaching rather. Arguing that every anthropomorphic reference in the Bible is not to be taken literally is just as insensitive to context (remember that?) as asserting that every one is to be so taken. So then: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." [1 John 9 - 12] Does all this really sound as it is not be to be taken literally? As always, evasion will be noted. I never claimed that the ultimate divine cannot take human form ever. What is rather obvious from the Bible though is that the god there took human form only 30+ years out of countless millennia. And that was largely to help people understand and reconcile them to the one not in human form. My point has ever been that there is something about god that cannot be expressed literally, and that much in the Bible should not be taken literally. Your point has ever been to find fault with my analysis. So far you have tried to use the "human emotions" of the god to prove it can't be a "figure of speech" since figures of speech to your brain cannot experience emotion. I have thoroughly defeated that claim by noting that something well beyond human might as easily have emotions of about any kind. So we see that your complaint against "figures of speech" is just the workings of your peculiar and illogical modes of thinking. You may attempt to deny and obfuscate now.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 21, 2020 22:24:30 GMT
goz said: [ full text here] < clips >
- Didn't they impress on you in debating school that ad hominem is not an actual argument let alone acceptable debating tool?
- Did you know that everyone who suffers from Dunning Kruger syndrome thinks that they had special training?
- BTW I don't have faith' in science or anything. I understand it and its uses benefits and limitations.
- It is important for you to understand, and you apparently still do not, that there is nothing necessarily or inherently "illogical" or wrong about noting personal flaws. The error would claiming that "science" is wrong because a proponent, you, are flawed. I am not making that mistake. I'm saying "science" is fine. I am saying that you should not represent a fine thing like science because you are not qualified.
- Not all of us have documentation.
- That's what they all say, and why I find no special use in citing Dunning Kruger.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 21, 2020 22:33:42 GMT
So when people speak of Jesus as God incarnate etc He was not really, it is all just a figure of speech? Well fancy that! Out goes the Trinity then lol. Have you told them? There is no reason it could not, although that would be an entirely different argument and appears another of your diversions. It appears now however that you are accepting that anthropomorphism appears throughout scripture, so that is one step forward and a QED. I thank you for playing. You supposed wrong. It is good to think, though. I note that no Christian here has replied to make clear that the deity they worship is not a God that at various times has been actually jealous, compassionate, angry and loving etc. That leaves you all by yourself, reaching rather. Arguing that every anthropomorphic reference in the Bible is not to be taken literally is just as insensitive to context (remember that?) as asserting that every one is to be so taken. So then: "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us." [1 John 9 - 12] Does all this really sound as it is not be to be taken literally? As always, evasion will be noted. I never claimed that the ultimate divine cannot take human form ever. What is rather obvious from the Bible though is that the god there took human form only 30+ years out of countless millennia. And that was largely to help people understand and reconcile them to the one not in human form. Your point has ever been to find fault with my analysis. So far you have tried to use the "human emotions" of the god to prove it can't be a "figure of speech" since figures of speech to your brain cannot experience emotion. I have thoroughly defeated that claim by noting that something well beyond human might as easily have emotions of about any kind. So we see that your complaint against "figures of speech" is just the workings of your peculiar and illogical modes of thinking. You may attempt to deny and obfuscate now. 1. 2. So you both want your cake AND eat it. Those two statements are incompatible with logic.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 21, 2020 23:10:05 GMT
I never claimed that the ultimate divine cannot take human form ever. What is rather obvious from the Bible though is that the god there took human form only 30+ years out of countless millennia. And that was largely to help people understand and reconcile them to the one not in human form. Your point has ever been to find fault with my analysis. So far you have tried to use the "human emotions" of the god to prove it can't be a "figure of speech" since figures of speech to your brain cannot experience emotion. I have thoroughly defeated that claim by noting that something well beyond human might as easily have emotions of about any kind. So we see that your complaint against "figures of speech" is just the workings of your peculiar and illogical modes of thinking. You may attempt to deny and obfuscate now. 1. 2. So you both want your cake AND eat it. Those two statements are incompatible with logic. Say what? The reason you believe any ad hominem is "not an argument" is that children are supposed to let adults do all the arguing and sometimes children are allowed to believe that any personal attacks are "illogical" and thus stay out of trouble. So why can't you stay out of trouble?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 21, 2020 23:14:21 GMT
1. 2. So you both want your cake AND eat it. Those two statements are incompatible with logic. Say what? The reason you believe any ad hominem is "not an argument" is that children are supposed to let adults do all the arguing and sometimes children are allowed to believe that any personal attacks are "illogical" and thus stay out of trouble. So why can't you stay out of trouble? Congratulations. You are a consistent winner of the 'Non-Sequitur Word Salad Award'.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 21, 2020 23:16:24 GMT
I never claimed that the ultimate divine cannot take human form ever. What is rather obvious from the Bible though is that the god there took human form only 30+ years out of countless millennia. And that was largely to help people understand and reconcile them to the one not in human form. Yes I remember this claim before. It is not clear however why God would swap (or want to swap) between a human form, an abstract, a code of ethics and the 'essence of nature' - all things you have claimed it is in turn, or even one of these whichever you have settled on for now - while remaining logically coherent as an idea. Perhaps you can elucidate? Evasion will be noted. Even if we accept your odd reckoning then presumably you mean that outside of JC, every other anthropomorphic representation or characterisation of God in the Bible is just a figure of speech. Here is the famous moment in Genesis since, predictably, you evaded dealing with the verse from John last time: "And [God] said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” And the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.” (Ex. 33:19–23) Please provide the exegesis whereby we are persuaded that the writers do not mean this extreme anthropomorphizing to be taken literally. Evasion will be noted. But this is just a convenient watering down. Originally you were reluctant to discover any anthropomorphism in the Bible, while those traditionalist who took all those references - even if just those emotions regularly attributed to the Almighty right across scripture and still preached today - literally as being the same as humans relate to, were mistaken, stupid or non-existent. Suddenly your claims are more modest and sensible, and one can see why. Meanwhile not a single Christian here has confirmed that they take the characterisation of the Almighty in scripture as an entity of love, prone to anger and jealousy yet compassionate etc as 'just a figure of speech'. Not one. Funny that. Perhaps you can find substantiation of this suggestion on line. Should I hold my breath? LOL When your analysis has been, as always, sweeping and dismissive of those who disagree with you while ignoring plain chapter and verse which can be quoted, it is easy to find fault. No, figures of speech cannot 'experience' anything. Neither can codes of ethics, or something entirely abstract, come to that. I hope that helps, since you seem confused. But even if they could, that would still represent an anthropomorphizing figure of speech would it not, projecting the human onto something other? Have you thought this through? Something with which I did not disagree with, although that does not affect the fact that anthropomorphism is defined as the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object and such a process can readily be discerned in the Bible, just as I said. Since you now agree with this point (as you mentioned last time the "truly anthropomorphic descriptions of "him" in the Bible.") I think the discussion is ended, since it is time you descended into rudeness. See above. My complaint is not that figures of speech do not exist in scripture, just that such a literary technique does not apply in every instance and you have agreed lately that yes, there are some "truly anthropomorphic" instances to be found. So ... see you on the next thread. Feel free to explain those two specific pieces of scripture I have given lately in the light of your views meantime. But you probably won't.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jul 21, 2020 23:19:37 GMT
I never claimed that the ultimate divine cannot take human form ever. What is rather obvious from the Bible though is that the god there took human form only 30+ years out of countless millennia. And that was largely to help people understand and reconcile them to the one not in human form. Yes I remember this claim before. It is not clear however why God would swap (or want to swap) between a human form, an abstract, a code of ethics and the 'essence of nature' - all things you have claimed it is in turn, or even one of these whichever you have settled on for now - while remaining logically coherent as an idea. Perhaps you can elucidate? Evasion will be noted. Even if we accept your odd reckoning then presumably you mean that outside of JC, every other anthropomorphic representation or characterisation of God in the Bible is just a figure of speech. Here is the famous moment in Genesis since, predictably, you evaded dealing with the verse from John last time: "And [God] said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” And the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.” (Ex. 33:19–23) Please provide the exegesis whereby we are persuaded that the writers do not mean this extreme anthropomorphizing to be taken literally. Evasion will be noted. But this is just a convenient watering down. Originally you were reluctant to discover any anthropomorphism in the Bible, while those traditionalist who took all those references - even if just those emotions regularly attributed to the Almighty right across scripture and still preached today - literally as being the same as humans relate to, were mistaken, stupid or non-existent. Suddenly your claims are more modest and sensible, and one can see why. Meanwhile not a single Christian here has confirmed that they take the characterisation of the Almighty in scripture as an entity of love, prone to anger and jealousy yet compassionate etc as 'just a figure of speech'. Not one. Funny that. Perhaps you can find substantiation of this suggestion on line. Should I hold my breath? LOL When your analysis has been, as always, sweeping and dismissive of those who disagree with you while ignoring plain chapter and verse which can be quoted, it is easy to find fault. No, figures of speech cannot 'experience' anything. Neither can codes of ethics, or something entirely abstract, come to that. I hope that helps, since you seem confused. But even if they could, that would still represent an anthropomorphizing figure of speech would it not, projecting the human onto something other? Have you thought this through? Something with which I did not disagree with, although that does not affect the fact that anthropomorphism is defined as the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object and such a process can readily be discerned in the Bible, just as I said. Since you now agree with this point (as you mentioned last time the "truly anthropomorphic descriptions of "him" in the Bible.") I think the discussion is ended, since it is time you descended into rudeness. See above. My complaint is not that figures of speech do not exist in scripture, just that such a literary technique does not apply in every instance and you have agreed lately that yes, there are some "truly anthropomorphic" instances to be found. So ... see you on the next thread. Feel free to answer those two specific pieces of scripture in the light of your views meantime. But you probably won't. I am sorry, but your complete incapacity to understand "symbolic" speech makes continuing this discussion pointless.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 21, 2020 23:20:25 GMT
Yes I remember this claim before. It is not clear however why God would swap (or want to swap) between a human form, an abstract, a code of ethics and the 'essence of nature' - all things you have claimed it is in turn, or even one of these whichever you have settled on for now - while remaining logically coherent as an idea. Perhaps you can elucidate? Evasion will be noted. Even if we accept your odd reckoning then presumably you mean that outside of JC, every other anthropomorphic representation or characterisation of God in the Bible is just a figure of speech. Here is the famous moment in Genesis since, predictably, you evaded dealing with the verse from John last time: "And [God] said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” And the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.” (Ex. 33:19–23) Please provide the exegesis whereby we are persuaded that the writers do not mean this extreme anthropomorphizing to be taken literally. Evasion will be noted. But this is just a convenient watering down. Originally you were reluctant to discover any anthropomorphism in the Bible, while those traditionalist who took all those references - even if just those emotions regularly attributed to the Almighty right across scripture and still preached today - literally as being the same as humans relate to, were mistaken, stupid or non-existent. Suddenly your claims are more modest and sensible, and one can see why. Meanwhile not a single Christian here has confirmed that they take the characterisation of the Almighty in scripture as an entity of love, prone to anger and jealousy yet compassionate etc as 'just a figure of speech'. Not one. Funny that. Perhaps you can find substantiation of this suggestion on line. Should I hold my breath? LOL When your analysis has been, as always, sweeping and dismissive of those who disagree with you while ignoring plain chapter and verse which can be quoted, it is easy to find fault. No, figures of speech cannot 'experience' anything. Neither can codes of ethics, or something entirely abstract, come to that. I hope that helps, since you seem confused. But even if they could, that would still represent an anthropomorphizing figure of speech would it not, projecting the human onto something other? Have you thought this through? Something with which I did not disagree with, although that does not affect the fact that anthropomorphism is defined as the attribution of human characteristics or behaviour to a god, animal, or object and such a process can readily be discerned in the Bible, just as I said. Since you now agree with this point (as you mentioned last time the "truly anthropomorphic descriptions of "him" in the Bible.") I think the discussion is ended, since it is time you descended into rudeness. See above. My complaint is not that figures of speech do not exist in scripture, just that such a literary technique does not apply in every instance and you have agreed lately that yes, there are some "truly anthropomorphic" instances to be found. So ... see you on the next thread. Feel free to answer those two specific pieces of scripture in the light of your views meantime. But you probably won't. I am sorry, but your complete incapacity to understand "symbolic" speech makes continuing this discussion pointless. I am sorry but your evasion is showing.
|
|