Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
6 or half a dozen? The estate in question is the "kingdom of God". It rightfully belonged to Jesus and it was clear through His presence that this was so. Nicodemus is an example. The problem is that the world (that's us) did not humiliate it's self sufficiently to accept Jesus' authority. As you rightly said, Jesus appeared much different to what the world was expecting a messiah to be. Yet another example of the human trying to put God in a mind-sized box.because they saw Jesus as a heretical false prophet, not because they wanted to "seize his inheritance".
oi_antz, it's clear to you and believers of your religion. It's not clear to anyone else. How would you take it if ANOTHER self-proclaimed messiah came along and tried to replace Jesus' New Covenant with a New New Covenant? Not very well, I wager. Even if this new messiah wowed everyone with his miracles, you'll have to admit that the source of his powers are just as likely to be from the devil as from God. In fact, given that he tries to abolish God's laws and replace them with new ones, it's more likely that he's from the devil rather than from God.6 or half a dozen? The estate in question is the "kingdom of God". It rightfully belonged to Jesus and it was clear through His presence that this was so.
Except that the messianic prophecies were given by the prophets Isaiah, Zechariah, and Ezekiel, not arbitrarily imposed by the Pharisees or anyone else. When Jesus claimed to be the messiah but was not of the bloodline of David, failed to return Israelites to their homeland, failed to "swallow up death forever", the dead did not rise, nations of the world neither looked to Jews for spiritual guidance nor acknowledge the wrongs they did to Israel, did not oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, did not bring about global peace, et cetera et cetera et cetera, what exactly did you expect the Pharisees to make of this self-proclaimed messiah?As you rightly said, Jesus appeared much different to what the world was expecting a messiah to be. Yet another example of the human trying to put God in a mind-sized box.
All in good time. Matthew 26:oi_antz, it's clear to you and believers of your religion. It's not clear to anyone else. How would you take it if ANOTHER self-proclaimed messiah came along and tried to replace Jesus' New Covenant with a New New Covenant? Not very well, I wager. Even if this new messiah wowed everyone with his miracles, you'll have to admit that the source of his powers are just as likely to be from the devil as from God. In fact, given that he tries to abolish God's laws and replace them with new ones, it's more likely that he's from the devil rather than from God.
Except that the messianic prophecies were given by the prophets Isaiah, Zechariah, and Ezekiel, not arbitrarily imposed by the Pharisees or anyone else. When Jesus claimed to be the messiah but was not of the bloodline of David, failed to return Israelites to their homeland, failed to "swallow up death forever", the dead did not rise, nations of the world neither looked to Jews for spiritual guidance nor acknowledge the wrongs they did to Israel, did not oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, did not bring about global peace, et cetera et cetera et cetera, what exactly did you expect the Pharisees to make of this self-proclaimed messiah?
Do you not see that our modern perspective gives us greater capacity to understand the life of Jesus?52 Put away your sword, Jesus told him. Those who use the sword will die by the sword. 53 Dont you realize that I could ask my Father for thousands[h] of angels to protect us, and he would send them instantly? 54 But if I did, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that describe what must happen now?
I'm interested in knowing why God doesn't appear to be interested in revealing himself via logic and reason.
The most common answer I've heard is that God doesn't want to "force" anyone to love him. I find that answer hardly makes any sense. Just because that we can deduce the existence of something doesn't mean we love it. For example, we know that Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein most certainly existed. That doesn't mean we love them. Similarly, God showing his existence doesn't mean we will no longer have a choice, and will be "forced" to love him.
God's refusal to show himself inflicts incredible damage to his own credibility; apparently we have a supreme being who's invisible, undetectable, and cannot be proven in any way. And even then, when we seek him, God's decision to only accept seekers who put aside logic and reason only hurts the Christian cause even more. As far as my understanding goes, in order to find God one needs to discard established, well-evidenced science, and embrace claims and stories that not only have no evidence to back them up, but oftentimes make little to no sense whatsoever.
It's all rather confusing. It does little to establish God's credibility, much less encourage people to accept and love him. If God really wants our acceptance and love, why doesn't he start off with the most basic step of showing us some solid, verifiable evidence that he actually exists at all?
Just because you're unable to answer my real question and are hence forced to frame my question as something else entirely, doesn't mean I'm not asking what I'm actually asking. While your inability to debate beyond what your rigid textbook defense has taught you and how lost you appear when you wander outside of it is somewhat cute and amusing, your desperate insistence on forcibly rephrasing my question into something I never said is can only be described as boorish and petulant.Just because you have figured out how to tell someone how they should conduct themselves or issue challenges in question form, does not mean you are asking questions. Reset and try again.
I will when you actually present an answer that addresses the question, instead of dodging it.If you are truly looking for an answer to your question, reset yourself and go back to my original response dealing with this question.
My good man, please do not confuse your determined and continued ignorance regarding the historical method with some sort of "undefined variable". While I could direct you towards some resources, I don't have enough privileges to post links yet, so I'm afraid you'll have to go through the arduous, back-breaking, time-consuming process of entering two words into a search engine and finding the links yourself.You have entered a undefined variable into this discussion. you have only vaguely mentioned or alluded to an absolute standard that quite frankly may or may not exist. I am simply asking you for the same "proof" that you have so humbly sought of the bible and of God. If the variable you have introduced into this conversation is indeed real you should have absolutely no trouble at all pointing me to at least some reference material outlining the parameters you have spoken of.
Can you name me one historically reliable, non-canonical gospel that was rejected by the church for being secular?*also*
It appears you have never studied any of the lost texts or their origins. Christianity (for the most part) has shunned these texts as being secular in origin for many different reasons. Most of which stems from a lack of a Christian message. Simply recording the life and times of Jesus is not enough to make a text "Christian."
With regards to the story of the unbelieving Israelites; if the story is true, then the Israelites were very, very stupid. How do you explain constantly turning your back on a supreme being that has saved you time and time again when your false gods couldn't, not to mention having literally shown himself to you? The behavior shown here is quite nonsensical. Note that I never said that the stories are incomprehensible. Like everyone else, I understand what happened in the stories just fine. What I'm saying is that what happened in the stories doesn't make sense.
.
In response to your bolded questions, I would propose the answers yes and yes.It seems reasonable to me that a Creator with the power to create our physical universe would be an overwhelming presence. If such a being were to present Himself to us in all His power and glory, would we truly be able to chose to not obey anything He asked us to do? Would we be able to love such a being as opposed to acting as if we did? I find it very reasonable for such a Creator to put us in such a position as we are in and ask us to becoming loving beings. We are able to do that without the imposition of the presence of a being with such power.
There is a vast difference between claiming to know God exists and actually standing in the presence of a being that can speak the universe into existence. There are some indications of people being in the presence of God in the Bible and being overwhelmed by His presence. I think that more likely than the stories you refer to where they were not. I agree in the presence of such power we could through fear pretend to love.In response to your bolded questions, I would propose the answers yes and yes.
Would we truly be able to choose not to obey? I think it's important to keep in mind that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all claim to know that God certainly and absolutely exists, yet have no problems with disobeying his commands all the time. For Christians, I point to the Westboro Baptist Church as an example, and even in this thread we can see Christians bristling with hubris and pride (not you, though). For Muslims, the example of radical terrorists are only all too obvious. Even in your own Bible there are various stories of people who knew with absolute certainly that God existed, having seen him with their own eyes, yet chose to disobey: Adam and Eve, the Israelites, King Solomon, et cetera. So yes, I'd say we would still truly be able to choose not to obey.
Would we be able to love as opposed to acting? Again, I would propose yes. If we can choose to not obey, we can certainly choose to love as well, or choose to pretend to love. God gave us free will, after all.
elman, would you agree that Adam and Eve are examples of (wo)men who stood in the presence of God, yet chose to disobey?There is a vast difference between claiming to know God exists and actually standing in the presence of a being that can speak the universe into existence. There are some indications of people being in the presence of God in the Bible and being overwhelmed by His presence. I think that more likely than the stories you refer to where they were not. I agree in the presence of such power we could through fear pretend to love.
No it is just a story--not really related much to actually standing in the presence of God.elman, would you agree that Adam and Eve are examples of (wo)men who stood in the presence of God, yet chose to disobey?
When you get down to it, almost everything in the Bible is "just a story". And given how Adam and Eve stood in the presence of God every day in the Garden of Eden before they were cast out, I fail to see how you conclude that it's "not really related much to actually standing in the presence of God".No it is just a story--not really related much to actually standing in the presence of God.
elman, would you agree that Adam and Eve are examples of (wo)men who stood in the presence of God, yet chose to disobey?
I'm interested in knowing why God doesn't appear to be interested in revealing himself via logic and reason.
The most common answer I've heard is that God doesn't want to "force" anyone to love him. I find that answer hardly makes any sense. Just because that we can deduce the existence of something doesn't mean we love it. For example, we know that Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein most certainly existed. That doesn't mean we love them. Similarly, God showing his existence doesn't mean we will no longer have a choice, and will be "forced" to love him.
God's refusal to show himself inflicts incredible damage to his own credibility; apparently we have a supreme being who's invisible, undetectable, and cannot be proven in any way. And even then, when we seek him, God's decision to only accept seekers who put aside logic and reason only hurts the Christian cause even more. As far as my understanding goes, in order to find God one needs to discard established, well-evidenced science, and embrace claims and stories that not only have no evidence to back them up, but oftentimes make little to no sense whatsoever.
It's all rather confusing. It does little to establish God's credibility, much less encourage people to accept and love him. If God really wants our acceptance and love, why doesn't he start off with the most basic step of showing us some solid, verifiable evidence that he actually exists at all?
Just because you're unable to answer my real question and are hence forced to frame my question as something else entirely, doesn't mean I'm not asking what I'm actually asking. While your inability to debate beyond what your rigid textbook defense has taught you and how lost you appear when you wander outside of it is somewhat cute and amusing, your desperate insistence on forcibly rephrasing my question into something I never said is can only be described as boorish and petulant.
I'd tell you to reset and try again, but the desperation with which you try to reword what I really said is a dead giveaway that you have no sensible reply, so I won't bother.
How many time in one discussion do you require one to answer a question?I will when you actually present an answer that addresses the question, instead of dodging it.
You were caught in a lie and do not even have the integrity to admit it. This is sad.My good man, please do not confuse your determined and continued ignorance regarding the historical method with some sort of "undefined variable". While I could direct you to wards some resources, I don't have enough privileges to post links yet, so I'm afraid you'll have to go through the arduous, back-breaking, time-consuming process of entering two words into a search engine and finding the links yourself.
Please tell me how is one supposed to "educate one's self" if the subject in question has been created on the spot by an individual who is using the "term" in question to prop up a weak argument?With that said, it doesn't really matter whether you choose to educate yourself or not. Any self-respecting debater knows that he needs to do his own homework instead of resorting to willful ignorance about a topic yet insisting on talking about that topic. Know that if you deliberately choose to continue being an ignorant boor sticking to your completely nonsensical argument of "historians automatically classify any text mentioning Jesus as a religious text!" instead of educating yourself so as to be able to provide any intelligent discourse regarding the historical method, you'll simply be ignored from this point on wards.
Why not do you own research?Can you name me one historically reliable, non-canonical gospel that was rejected by the church for being secular?
Wait. Wait wait wait. So your argument is now that the historical method is a fictional field of study concocted by my imagination?Please tell me how is one supposed to "educate one's self" if the subject in question has been created on the spot by an individual who is using the "term" in question to prop up a weak argument?
Actually, I have. The answer is that there is no such thing as a historically-reliable, secular lost gospel. I didn't ask the question to find out the answer, because I already know it, but to find out how an ignorant boor like yourself is going to answer it. Apparently your best attempt was to lie and pretend that you don't have enough privileges to post links. That's a sin by the way, better deal with it first before being a Pharisee-like hypocrite and accusing others of lying to cover up your own ignorance.Why not do you own research?
He actually has revealed his personal relationship with each one of us in a thoroughly scientific way. The physics, the testing and peer reviewing, has all been done. Everything except the extrapolation of this divine relationship with the individual, from the clear, unambiguous evidence.
I am referring to the personalizing/customizing of the absolute speed of light to the observer, irrespective of whether he is stationary or moving at a constant speed. In our space-time reference-frame that is a unique occurrence. Measurement of the speed of everything else is relative.
Two cars running parallel to each other, one at 30 mph the other at 50 mph; the speed of the 50 mph car, as measured by an observer in the other car would be 20 mph, since his car is already travelling at 30 mph in the same direction.
The same two cars at night-time have the beams of another car's head-lights behind them shining on the respective rears of their car. The speed of the light-beams shone on them by the car behind them will always be found by the observer in each one of them, to be that same absolute speed, despite the different speeds at which their own respective vehicles are travelling.
This is how it is expressed at 'howitwordsdaily.com':
"Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity, first postulated in 1905, says that the laws of physics and the speed of light are the same for all observers, regardless of their own speed or motion. To have a better understanding, imagine two people travelling at different speeds observing the same beam of light. According to Special Relativity, both will record the same speed for the beam, regardless of their own speed and direction.
This contradicts more practical examples on Earth. If a car moves at 40mph away from an observer, and another travels at 50mph from the same point in the same direction, relative to each other the second car will be moving at 10mph. However, a light beam moving in the same direction as the cars would appear to have no change in speed relative to them and would remain at its universally agreed value c, about 299,792,458 metres per second. Of course, this is theoretical and in practice not measurable, but nevertheless its the basis of Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity."
It amounts to scientific proof of the existence of a personal God - theism, and not just the impersonal 'deism'. It is counter-rational at the mechanistic level, but so is quantum physics.
There is a 'cosy', secular convention that the paradoxes of physics, increasingly proliferating, the deeper it is probed, are counter-intuitive. They are not. They are counter-rational. But that would destroy the mystique they like to propagate and preserve at all costs around science, as a special, uniquely sound and sure form of knowledge, when the reality is that the paradoxes of physics are every bit as unfathomably, indeed, imponderably mysterious (or 'absurd', as the fathers of quantum physics, Max Planck and Niels Bohr, preferred to call it), as are the mysteries taught by the Christian church concerning the nature of the Most Holy Trinity and Christ's incarnation, for example.
Today's secular scientists follow "the letter" of the precepts of the great paradigm-changers, but can't actually bring themselves to embrace the actual truths, themselves; hence the use of the term, "counter-intuitive", claiming a passion for intuitive thinking, while clinging for dear life onto the certainties of mechanistic, Newtonian physics, petrified of the intellectually humbling pardadigm of quantum physics, with its authors' unashamed invocation of absurdity, absolutely repugnant to reason, and hence, intrinsically unfathomable.
The first thing the 'naive realists', as Einstein called them, will say, is: "Where did the Church get the evidence?" Well, Einstein did not arrive at his relativity theories by the scientific method. He used his singularly un-hidebound imagination; as he often stated he considered imagination to be more important than knowledge. He once pointed to the drawer in his desk at the patent office, and remarked to a colleague that that was his Department of Theoretical Physics.
No need to apologize, that's the whole point of having a discussion.Apologize for butting in the middle of a discussion, but I always thought this may be one of the reasons why God doesn't reveal himself in a thundering universe shaking sort of way. Adam and Eve experienced everything God had to offer, but you could argue they seriously lacked the characteristics of what makes a good human being. Patience, forgiveness, courage, etc etc.
paul, I'd be greatly interested to see a brief description of this testing, your physics equations on how to extend the constancy of light speed to prove the existence of God, who were the ones to have peer-reviewed these equations, and how did they do it. Thanks in advance.He actually has revealed his personal relationship with each one of us in a thoroughly scientific way. The physics, the testing and peer reviewing, has all been done. Everything except the extrapolation of this divine relationship with the individual, from the clear, unambiguous evidence.
I'm interested in knowing why God doesn't appear to be interested in revealing himself via logic and reason.
The most common answer I've heard is that God doesn't want to "force" anyone to love him. I find that answer hardly makes any sense. Just because that we can deduce the existence of something doesn't mean we love it. For example, we know that Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein most certainly existed. That doesn't mean we love them. Similarly, God showing his existence doesn't mean we will no longer have a choice, and will be "forced" to love him.
God's refusal to show himself inflicts incredible damage to his own credibility; apparently we have a supreme being who's invisible, undetectable, and cannot be proven in any way. And even then, when we seek him, God's decision to only accept seekers who put aside logic and reason only hurts the Christian cause even more. As far as my understanding goes, in order to find God one needs to discard established, well-evidenced science, and embrace claims and stories that not only have no evidence to back them up, but oftentimes make little to no sense whatsoever.
It's all rather confusing. It does little to establish God's credibility, much less encourage people to accept and love him. If God really wants our acceptance and love, why doesn't he start off with the most basic step of showing us some solid, verifiable evidence that he actually exists at all?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?