B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Allow me to thank you, Angelo Michael. I confirm what you say. I have seen the documentary.
- Status
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I guess I’ll let people define for themselves whether they’re monotheists or polytheists (just like I don’t like people telling me what I am, when I know I’m something else … I try to afford others the same level of respect).
There’s been plenty of philosophers out there (some very unkind to theism, like Nietzsche) who I think did an adequate job explaining why people believe extraordinary stories that aren’t true (and from an outside perspective seem quite bizarre). So no need for me to rehash their work (and it’s probably unnecessarily inflammatory).
My point is quite simply that theism is a collection of myths. No supreme spirit whispered in the ear of a guy named Abraham, no guy named Moses acted as a conduit for this supreme spirit and divided the red sea in half. The chronology of Exodus is all screwed up. For instance Kadesh-Barnea was occupied centuries too late for even a late Exodus to be possible The alleged numbers of Jews who left Egypt would have amounted to half of the entire Egyptian population at the time; and the loss of such a large number of people would have certainly wreaked havoc to the Egyptian economy. Yet no mention in any Egyptian historical record. Archeological research has found no evidence the Sinai desert ever hosted, or could have hosted, millions of people; nor is there any evidence of a massive population increase in Canaan.
2.5 million people marching would have formed a line roughly 150 miles long, without accounting for livestock. In short the traditional Exodus account is not within the range of historical possibility.
There’s some alternate theories out there … but of course this is (what I call) the theistic tap dance. When science proves your story wrong invent a new one, call the old one figurative, and say yeah yeah our ancient predecessors really were right all along (but it all depends on how you define “right” … you know, like what IS the meaning of IS anyway)
J
josie_L
Guest
Oh really, Christian “polytheism”, well Ben, can you explain this scripture for me:
"God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was. Then God said: “Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness”. Genesis 1 25-26
How do you interpret or understand, the meaning of the word “US” and “OUR” in this passage? Who is God refering to? Who is God speaking to?
K
KindredSoul
Guest
You are oversimplifying my argument, but I have come to believe you’ll do that every single time you are presented with this particular argument. There are a number or specific circumstances involved in my argument, which we have been over multiple times, and so I refuse to repeat myself. You’ll only oversimplify it again, making it into a subtle straw man, and it will seem, to look at your response, that I never actually said what I said. Which means we will never make any progress; anytime you wish to give thought to my real argument, in its full nature, it can be found in my previous post and more thoroughly fleshed out earlier in the thread.
God the Son has existed forever, not only since the historical incarnation. Ergo He too possesses an eternal Spiritual nature, like the other two persons of the Trinity. Just because He took on a bodily nature, and has that nature permanently as well as His spiritual nature doesn’t mean that He forfeited His Godhood (which would be impossible); nor does it mean that He forfeited His absolute Oneness with the Father and Holy Spirit. Quite the contrary, He has become the visible and bodily image of the Invisible and spiritual God, something that requires Incarnation to begin with. Jesus of Nazareth, in having a body and being the Incarnation of the Son, is the “If God had a human body, this is what He would look like”, the “if God took a physical human form, this would be it.” By definition, this does not mean that He has become separate from God; He has merely revealed God in a new way. Yes, it may sound complex, but to oversimplify it tends to make it into yet another straw man, and as is increasingly evident on this very thread, straw men are one of the most common obstacles of coming to an understanding in any debate.
Then unless you’re building another straw man, that belongs in a different discussion that has nothing to do with Catholicism. Catholics have faith, but it is not blind. Accusing us of such, no matter how many times the baseless accusation is repeated, will never make it true.
At no point have you demonstrated that you do not also live by faith. Faith is simply the leap necessary between something being possible/probable and something being absolutely believed. Faith is not opposed to reason, knowledge, or understanding; rather, it builds upon them, reaching where they alone cannot, but not contradicting them either. If you believe in any truth claim firmly, even if it’s counter-religious instead of religious–even if it’s a truth claim so seemingly neutral as “I don’t need to believe one way or the other”–faith was involved in coming to that conclusion, no matter how subtly or unconsciously so. Judaism is no exception, nor have you shown it to be. I have explained all this before, and will no longer repeat myself.
Well, if we’re going to resort to calling a person’s explanations of his own beliefs absolute cop-outs, then we have really abandoned any hope of coming to an understanding. Considering I didn’t dodge the issue in any way, and was rather direct in fact, labeling it as a cop-out was entirely arbitrary. If such is the nature of our discussion, any explanation the other gives, even if it punches a hole in the negative straw man caricature of their beliefs, will just be labelled as a “cop-out” so that we can continue thinking as badly of them as we wish. Why do you bother discussing these matters? It seems to me you’re already determined to think whatever of us you want to, and are prepared to write our explanations off as “cop-outs” if ever they conflict with what, for whatever inexplicable motive, you want to think about us. That renders the discussion pointless.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
A
Angelo_Michael
Guest
I’m not the best religious scholar, I’ve read the Bible a few times and most non-canonical works at least once. I don’t know [much] Hebrew or Greek, and so I am reminded of Moses and when he didn’t want to go do what he was being requested to do because he felt inadequate. From the research I’ve done, the scriptures pertaining to Christ don’t necessarily ‘sync up’ so perfectly; and that is what His body of works achieves – a bridging of the gap and a creating of a workable faith. (Maybe try reading my first post at this site for reference.)
Again, from what I understand, the Papacy is derived from Peter rather than Paul. I actually have Paul as the first Protestant (like unto Shimei). I can understand how my use of “Catholic” might be misleading as I don’t know much about Catholicism at all. Also, the controversy that exists from my body of works, and that the previous Pope was incapicitated during much of it, and the cohesive effort in concealing or not-releasing info, have led me to not be too interested in [the pursuit of] any organized religion at the moment; but rather has compelled me to focus on the task at hand. Perhaps, by what some may consider Grace, I have had previous life experience in handling the “extinction” of my personality and/or history of events pertaining to me; and so I do not fare so badly (psychologically) within the context of the current situation.
As for the issue with Satan, I thought Satan’s active influence in humankind was demonstrated in Job (by Moses?). And Peter is like Job, in that Satan tries to “get to him” but can not because of his faith [in Christ]. Judas I. is different in that he surrenders to Satan and does not have the faith that Peter has. That the apostles chose Matthias out of the casting of lots (or whatever it was) is not necessarily objectionable in the context that it is enacted. Although I generally reference Joel 3:[1-]3, John 15:26-27, and Psalm 90:4 to indicate that the intended [permanent] replacement may be the, “Spirit of truth.”
Actually, in the “workability” of it all, I don’t necessarily intend on “converting” Jews to Christianity. I kind of feel a bit like a mediator that is asking both sides to consider being a little less opposed to each other and leaving the Judgment to God [and/or Christ.] Also, although I know next to nothing of Islam, I generally conclude that that endeavor may have been similarly authorized (such as for the shepherd, Cyrus) as mine has; and that Judas I. is as the ‘thief’, and Mohammed (PBUH) is as the ‘hired hand’, and that I, like Christ, must have to die (for reference: John 10:1-18, and Matthew 10:24-25). From my perspective/experience, and as for my motivation, there’s sometimes more of an emotional or practical development of theology than one that is necessarily going to work for everyone.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
I wonder if your statement is historically accurate. In other words, was there ever a time the Jewish people took a more dogmatic stance with regard to concepts like perdition (for instance, during the second temple period)? I know there’s the concept of the Noahide laws (applicable to gentiles), one of which requires faith in your version of a god. However, what happens to those who fail to achieve this standard? Do they go to a hell, or do they simply cease to exist?
I’d say everyone should consider agnosticism (the world would be a much better place)
In fairness, the New Testament is replacement theology (at least from my read of it). The caveat is god never intended Judaism to provide an avenue to salvation, but rather the Jewish purpose was to serve as a microcosm of mankind (and his inability to achieve the divine standard). I guess there’s some Christians out there who disagree with this, but that interpretation of the New Testament probably became popular because picking on Jews became taboo (and I guess the Arabs were a readily available replacement).
I think Paul tosses you guys a bone at the end of Romans 11 (I suppose god will reward Jews, maybe out of a guilty conscience, for compelling you guys to live out your history in a fishbowl, as an illustration for all mankind of the futility of trying to behave ourselves without his mystical assistance … at least according to Christians).
As for me, I can’t figure out how intelligent adults can believe in myths of talking snakes, rivers of blood, rising dead men, much less making a pedophile (Muhammad) into a prophet? When I see the paranoia, hate, zealous rhetoric, dreams of an apocalypse, the idea that fighting for an imaginary god has anything to do with nobility or honor, or connecting religion to nationalism; I can’t help but to voice my opposition (and run my big mouth). It’s just insane to me:shrug:
A
Angelo_Michael
Guest
If one were to compare our responses to the same questions they would probably easily note our differing opinions/views. Yet, if you are sincerely interested in advocating that America should stop using the word/concept ‘God’, then you might be interested in my writings at this link: iusbvision.wordpress.com/2006/11/21/is-there-a-moral-justification-for-abortion/I wonder if your statement is historically accurate. In other words, was there ever a time the Jewish people took a more dogmatic stance with regard to concepts like perdition (for instance, during the second temple period)? I know there’s the concept of the Noahide laws (applicable to gentiles), one of which requires faith in your version of a god. However, what happens to those who fail to achieve this standard? Do they go to a hell, or do they simply cease to exist?
I’d say everyone should consider agnosticism (the world would be a much better place)
In fairness, the New Testament is replacement theology (at least from my read of it). The caveat is god never intended Judaism to provide an avenue to salvation, but rather the Jewish purpose was to serve as a microcosm of mankind (and his inability to achieve the divine standard). I guess there’s some Christians out there who disagree with this, but that interpretation of the New Testament probably became popular because picking on Jews became taboo (and I guess the Arabs were a readily available replacement).
I think Paul tosses you guys a bone at the end of Romans 11 (I suppose god will reward Jews, maybe out of a guilty conscience, for compelling you guys to live out your history in a fishbowl, as an illustration for all mankind of the futility of trying to behave ourselves without his mystical assistance … at least according to Christians).
As for me, I can’t figure out how intelligent adults can believe in myths of talking snakes, rivers of blood, rising dead men, much less making a pedophile (Muhammad) into a prophet? When I see the paranoia, hate, zealous rhetoric, dreams of an apocalypse, the idea that fighting for an imaginary god has anything to do with nobility or honor, or connecting religion to nationalism; I can’t help but to voice my opposition (and run my big mouth). It’s just insane to me:shrug:
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
**Okay, you have just let me know that I am dealing with an Atheist. And let me say that you don’t scare me a bit. I am ready to take you on your own territory. You discard Theism. Very good, there is no God.I guess I’ll let people define for themselves whether they’re monotheists or polytheists (just like I don’t like people telling me what I am, when I know I’m something else … I try to afford others the same level of respect).
There’s been plenty of philosophers out there (some very unkind to theism, like Nietzsche) who I think did an adequate job explaining why people believe extraordinary stories that aren’t true (and from an outside perspective seem quite bizarre). So no need for me to rehash their work (and it’s probably unnecessarily inflammatory).
My point is quite simply that theism is a collection of myths. No supreme spirit whispered in the ear of a guy named Abraham, no guy named Moses acted as a conduit for this supreme spirit and divided the red sea in half. The chronology of Exodus is all screwed up. For instance Kadesh-Barnea was occupied centuries too late for even a late Exodus to be possible The alleged numbers of Jews who left Egypt would have amounted to half of the entire Egyptian population at the time; and the loss of such a large number of people would have certainly wreaked havoc to the Egyptian economy. Yet no mention in any Egyptian historical record. Archeological research has found no evidence the Sinai desert ever hosted, or could have hosted, millions of people; nor is there any evidence of a massive population increase in Canaan.
2.5 million people marching would have formed a line roughly 150 miles long, without accounting for livestock. In short the traditional Exodus account is not within the range of historical possibility.
There’s some alternate theories out there … but of course this is (what I call) the theistic tap dance. When science proves your story wrong invent a new one, call the old one figurative, and say yeah yeah our ancient predecessors really were right all along (but it all depends on how you define “right” … you know, like what IS the meaning of IS anyway)
Now, before we get anywhere from here, I need to hear from you where the whole of the Universe comes from if not from a Supreme Creator. Please, don’t discard my question because you will be making a fool of yourself. BTW, either discarding it or not you will be trapped like a mouse telling me that you are ready to give up the cheese for just letting yourself go.
Now, go ahead, I am all ears. Who moved the first stone for the whole deck of dominos to still keep falling one after the other? **
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
Please, read my thread on the “Personification of Attributes.” The answer you need is in there down to the details.
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
B
Ben_Masada
Guest
[/QUOTE]
K
KindredSoul
Guest
You needn’t worry about that; I’ve repeated myself enough so that if you haven’t gotten my argument right by now, you probably won’t. It’s all there in previous posts. That’s all.
As you have done before, you overlooked the entire point of what I was saying to attack one peripheral word (historical) that you didn’t like me to use.
You haven’t successfully proven that Paul made up Christianity or the Trinity. Yet, as usual, we shall be the ones faulted for not believing your claims.
Still building the straw man caricature of Catholics.
Still ignoring what faith is, religiously speaking.
A straw man is when you put words in someone’s mouth and, instead of addressing what they are actually saying, you address the “straw man” (the words you put in their mouth) which is easily destroyed. The difference between recognizing that someone is building a straw man and accusing them of a cop-out is obvious: The former is based around the opponent misunderstanding your argument. The latter is most often a petty accusation/insult intended to make the other side look bad, usually when they admit in some fashion, directly or otherwise, that they don’t have an answer (which, in the world of debate, doesn’t necessarily mean they are proven wrong, unlike using the word “cop-out” unfairly implies), but you have displayed that even when the other side does have an answer they might get accused of a “cop-out” which is even more uncharitable (and baseless) than how the term is normally used.
You missed the point again; my question was about why do you come here to discuss something when really your goal seems to be to tell us what you believe about our religion, and dismiss anything we say that clears up any accusations as cop-outs; likewise, any “evidence” you show is treated like proof that would win in the court of law, while our evidence is ignored entirely or it is said “That’s not evidence.” You seem never to have intended to take our side or our arguments seriously, even though you are the one who started the thread. That’s not a discussion, that’s a biased soapbox.
Anyway, I won’t stop believing in what I am rationally and logically persuaded is the true religion just because it bothers you or you think it distorts your own religion (I disagree), so I guess you’re here to stay. Unless you offer anything new, however, that doesn’t mean I have to go on repeating myself.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
K
KindredSoul
Guest
Believe it or not, I for one have considered it, and at one time was quite ready to be agnostic. But it requires faith (yes, agnosticism) on my part that all existing religions are certainly false and that it is thus okay and ideal, intellectually and spiritually, to not make a choice at all (since any one of them might require a choice to be made). On rational grounds, I am not persuaded that this is the most probable option, and so I cannot muster up the faith ironically required, though I can certainly appreciate how easy it is to be persuaded thereof.I’d say everyone should consider agnosticism (the world would be a much better place)
Eh, I know you find it hard to believe but there are many of us, me included, who can’t figure out how intelligent adults can honestly not grasp that many of these “myths” are at least possible. You have to have already come to the conclusion that God is not real, a conclusion I have never seen proven and of which I honestly haven’t been convinced on a rational level, before you can come to the conclusion that it is outright unintelligent to believe in miracles and events of “mythical” proportions.
As I said above, I can see why a person might be persuaded into an agnostic stance (it makes far more sense than outright atheism); but I can also see (and have been able to see throughout even my most cynical moments) how people might be intelligently convinced of existing religions as well, and I find it hard to believe that others honestly can’t see that. To me, that’s just as unbelievable as you find religion to be. As for me, I am persuaded that the Faith is the most probable and plausible reality, and worth putting faith in. Why am I convinced? Because, as much as Ben would like to convince us otherwise, I have no plausible explanation, other than those that seem (to me) to be rather contrived (with or without the existence of God), for what happened 2000 years ago other than that a man named Jesus rose from the dead.
Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul
A
Angelo_Michael
Guest
I don’t have so many posts at this site, and I usually don’t write so much and I quote scripture a lot. I recommend reading them all so you get a better understanding of where I am coming from in relation to the Scriptures.
As far as the body of works I have done/ (that have been done thru me), one of the main things they impute to me is that God knows everything about all times and that I am only given a window to look thru; like looking out the peep hole in your front door – you can only see so much.
I haven’t gone into any specific detail about any of the events I’ve related (due to emotional overload, censorship, etc.), but there was an incident where a famous Hebrew’s life was essentially requested to be taken by a Satanic entity. This time there was no escaping, no anything,… the young man disappeared, the Satanic entity was found to be anti-Semitic. I, again, was like the mediator and the whole public act was granted by God for witness to another event that would follow in which lives would be lost. I thought Job was an Edomite, and that Jacob was as the one who received 5 talents, Ishmael receiving 2, and Esau 1. That event was symbolic of demonstrating the superiority of Jacob to me.
By previous life experience I mean this life – my life growing up. Certain unpleasant events that I would not have requested have prepared me for the ones I face now.
You say everything has to make sense to you. To me, it’s so strange (and difficult) even to explain what is going on technically to another. It’s like I start talking and then it’s about the future. It’s like being in a state of shock – I can not even ‘believe’ what I am saying (not that I lose faith in God or Christ). It improves with experience, but the resulting carnage and alienation are a bit disquieting.
By the way, my relationship with Christ began before I read the Bible and I read the Old Testament first, before moving on to the New. I didn’t know much about church teachings either way – what I’ve learned (outside of revelation) is generally from Scripture.
I’m not always trying to actively convert anyone, just to deal with the situation I, and others, are now in.
L
Lapell
Guest
Wild aurochs or bulls don’t look like they are necessarily to be equated with unicorns, even if the species is suppose to be extinct. It’s a supposition then, not a certitude that’s absolute…It’s not in Genesis, it’s Job 39:8-12, Numbers 23:22, and 24:8 (although some bibles translate the term as wild ox, it used to be translated as “unicorn” … for instance the KJV still uses the term “unicorn”).
The original Hebrew is: ראם, translated it’s rĕ’em, and in English “unicorns”
Here’s the definition:
probably the great aurochs or wild bulls which are now extinct. The exact meaning is not known.
Oh yeah … now exitenct
L
Lapell
Guest
**If you don’t have an answer for the reason of the Temple’s curtain to have been torn completely and for the Temple of Jerusalem to have been completely destroyed (except for the kotel) and for its not having been rebuilt to this day after 1939 years, why question your Christian neighbour’s object of his/her faith? You are doing us (and more importantly, to yourself) a disservice! **
L
Lapell
Guest
To Jews, is a “satan” (adversary or obstacle) the same thing as a “devil”? When Jesus admonished Peter calling him “satan”, what he said next explains why he called him so. “You are an ostacle on my way. Your thoughts are not of God, but of men.” Men, not the devil…
J
josie_L
Guest
Jesus was the long awaited Messiah foretold in scripture (yours and mine), if you don’t believe that he was, fine, but don’t say that we have distorted the image of Judaism just because Jews did not accept him as such.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
Actually, this is a pretty interesting question. Here’s a excerpt from the Wiki article on unicorns:
*An animal called the Re’em (Hebrew: רְאֵם) is mentioned in several places in the Hebrew Bible, often as a metaphor representing strength. “The allusions to the re’em as a wild, un-tamable animal of great strength and agility, with mighty horn or horns (Job 39:9-12, Ps 22:21, 29:6, Num 23:22, 24:8, Deut 33:17 comp. Ps 92:11), best fit the aurochs (Bos primigenius). This view is supported by the Assyrian rimu, which is often used as a metaphor of strength, and is depicted as a powerful, fierce, wild mountain bull with large horns.”[4] This animal was often depicted in ancient Mesopotamian art in profile, with only one horn visible.
The translators of the Authorized King James Version of the Bible (1611) followed the Greek Septuagint (monokeros) and the Latin Vulgate (unicornus) and employed unicorn to translate re’em, providing a recognizable animal that was proverbial for its un-tamable nature.*
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorn
Interestingly the article indicates this “one horned animal” can be traced back to Mesopotamian depictions of wild bulls (in its art).
I realize showing that a common “Mesopotamian root” exists with regard to a variety of myths (including Greek and biblical) doesn’t in itself prove anything. It’s just another small piece of information, like for instance the parallel between the Sumerian flood account and the later biblical narrative. When you do an in depth comparison between these early mythological stories and the bible, IMO the case become pretty strong. Then when examined in concert with other probative facts (like the fact that god hasn’t shown himself in a verifiable way, which has been subjected to any real scrutiny, ever in history), in my view it makes religious faith seem pretty unreasonable.
I understand it provides comfort, it’s part of our cultural heritage, and there’s numerous reasons why religious participation makes sense for many people. It’s just that … none of it really happened.
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
There’s a very good reason why I don’t believe these myths are possible. It’s quite simply the preponderance of the evidence. Let’s face it, atheist or agnosticism is not an easy choice for anyone. It necessarily means (at least for intelligent people) we voluntarily place ourselves in a minority (who is subjected to quite a bit of ridicule and mistrust by majority). Therefore, for someone like me it’s not a choice I made until I weighed all the facts (frankly, with an inclination to remain a theist, since it’s just an easier thing to be in this country).
- Status