Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Accept this man as God/Jesus

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 6:12:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

No you are not crazy, You are right to question this, I also doubt that we should regard Jesus as God, and I don't think that is the right view, although some profess it is, it is clearly not, however, I do believe it could be argued, That Jesus was perhaps the most accurate expression of Gods love, or morale.

The story of Jesus has fascinated many great thinkers and for good reason I would say, The idea that one person would allow himself or orchestrate his own sacrifice for the message of Gods love and to bear the burdens and sins of the people, ( regardless if true or not,) is one of the most touching and moving scenarios in the history of the world.

Or maybe not, but that is the way I see it.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 8:45:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

no we can believe all life came from a primeordial soup or aliens planted us here, that's far more believable...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 8:46:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 8:45:03 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

no we can believe all life came from a primeordial soup or aliens planted us here, that's far more believable...

F*ck evolution, Jesus is God, thanks for setting me straight. :)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
graceofgod
Posts: 5,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 9:59:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 8:46:01 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/15/2015 8:45:03 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

no we can believe all life came from a primeordial soup or aliens planted us here, that's far more believable...

F*ck evolution, Jesus is God, thanks for setting me straight. :)

no problem...
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 10:08:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

before doing anything, ask them in any version of the Bible where jesus said "im God" or "worship me" and see what happens.
Never fart near dog
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 10:14:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

The numbers in faith tend to sustain it. The more people around you believing what you believe, the more readily you'll believe it. Some 60-70% of all people of faith (whatever faith) adopt the faith of their parents, for example.

Right now, each new Christian helps to validate and secure a faith hemorrhaging adherents, and adds political power to a group struggling to maintain relevance in a world neither explained by theology nor morally requiring its traditional doctrines .

So beyond doctrinal admonitions to do so, there's strong psychological and social self-interest in Christians seeking to make more Christians, which is why some may at times ignore reasonable requests for rational and respectful deference to other views.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 10:23:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 10:08:12 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

before doing anything, ask them in any version of the Bible where jesus said "im God" or "worship me" and see what happens.

the I am statements made by Jesus are quite clear, as is the alpha and omega statements in revelations....

God the father tells the angels to worship Jesus, it mentions many times where Jesus is worshiped ...
graceofgod
Posts: 5,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 10:25:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 10:14:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

The numbers in faith tend to sustain it. The more people around you believing what you believe, the more readily you'll believe it. Some 60-70% of all people of faith (whatever faith) adopt the faith of their parents, for example.

Right now, each new Christian helps to validate and secure a faith hemorrhaging adherents, and adds political power to a group struggling to maintain relevance in a world neither explained by theology nor morally requiring its traditional doctrines .

So beyond doctrinal admonitions to do so, there's strong psychological and social self-interest in Christians seeking to make more Christians, which is why some may at times ignore reasonable requests for rational and respectful deference to other views.

but don't forget 99.9% of believers in evolution do do through faith but we have schools to pressure new believers in to keeping the faith...
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 10:28:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 10:23:38 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:08:12 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

before doing anything, ask them in any version of the Bible where jesus said "im God" or "worship me" and see what happens.

the I am statements made by Jesus are quite clear, as is the alpha and omega statements in revelations....

God the father tells the angels to worship Jesus, it mentions many times where Jesus is worshiped ...

it was somebody's "dream" or Jesus said in his life time as written in the 4 Gospels? i said where Jesus himself said "im God" not what anonymous people thought about him.
Never fart near dog
graceofgod
Posts: 5,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 10:40:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 10:28:59 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:23:38 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:08:12 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

before doing anything, ask them in any version of the Bible where jesus said "im God" or "worship me" and see what happens.

the I am statements made by Jesus are quite clear, as is the alpha and omega statements in revelations....

God the father tells the angels to worship Jesus, it mentions many times where Jesus is worshiped ...

it was somebody's "dream" or Jesus said in his life time as written in the 4 Gospels? i said where Jesus himself said "im God" not what anonymous people thought about him.

Jesus himself made "I am" statements, to the jews "I am" is God...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 11:42:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 10:25:27 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:14:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

The numbers in faith tend to sustain it. The more people around you believing what you believe, the more readily you'll believe it. Some 60-70% of all people of faith (whatever faith) adopt the faith of their parents, for example.

Right now, each new Christian helps to validate and secure a faith hemorrhaging adherents, and adds political power to a group struggling to maintain relevance in a world neither explained by theology nor morally requiring its traditional doctrines .

So beyond doctrinal admonitions to do so, there's strong psychological and social self-interest in Christians seeking to make more Christians, which is why some may at times ignore reasonable requests for rational and respectful deference to other views.

but don't forget 99.9% of believers in evolution do do through faith but we have schools to pressure new believers in to keeping the faith...

Did you invent or misreport that statistic, GoG? If not, please cite the credible, peer-reviewed paper reporting it.

Notwithstanding, I would agree that people who don't understand science may believe it anyway as an article of faith -- which I'm happy to characterise as ignorant deference to credentialed authority. Yet science upholds the principles of evidence, transparency and accountability, and holds that credentials have no authority: only data and competence matter, so we can reduce that number by increasing science literacy.

I'm strongly in favour of that, and hope you are too. I think it helps nobody to accept scientific results for the wrong reasons.

By contrast though, do you think there's anything theology could or would do to reduce the level of ignorant deference to its own credentialed authority? To cease its egregious appeals to priming and confirmation bias, for example, and the fallacies of antiquity and popularity?

I do not.

I think that for centuries, despite a strong social trend toward better ethical practice everywhere -- in greater evidence, transparency, accountability in every profession from accounting to zoology, theology has recalcitrantly scorned all three, adhering to claims it cannot substantiate, ignoring contrary evidence in whatever weight and abundance, admitting few misgivings about the obscurity of its own origins, and acknowledging little accountability for its past and continuing ignorance and error in matters of history, morality and every field of science it has ever pronounced on.

In science, admitting ignorance and correcting error promptly and accountably enhance credibility, reliability and trust. Yet in religion, theologians act like doing so can only ever diminish their authority.

Perhaps they're right.

Else, why continue to embrace mediaeval ethical practices when the whole developed world has moved on?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 12:05:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 11:42:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:25:27 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:14:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

The numbers in faith tend to sustain it. The more people around you believing what you believe, the more readily you'll believe it. Some 60-70% of all people of faith (whatever faith) adopt the faith of their parents, for example.

Right now, each new Christian helps to validate and secure a faith hemorrhaging adherents, and adds political power to a group struggling to maintain relevance in a world neither explained by theology nor morally requiring its traditional doctrines .

So beyond doctrinal admonitions to do so, there's strong psychological and social self-interest in Christians seeking to make more Christians, which is why some may at times ignore reasonable requests for rational and respectful deference to other views.

but don't forget 99.9% of believers in evolution do do through faith but we have schools to pressure new believers in to keeping the faith...

Did you invent or misreport that statistic, GoG? If not, please cite the credible, peer-reviewed paper reporting it.

Notwithstanding, I would agree that people who don't understand science may believe it anyway as an article of faith -- which I'm happy to characterise as ignorant deference to credentialed authority. Yet science upholds the principles of evidence, transparency and accountability, and holds that credentials have no authority: only data and competence matter, so we can reduce that number by increasing science literacy.

I'm strongly in favour of that, and hope you are too. I think it helps nobody to accept scientific results for the wrong reasons.

By contrast though, do you think there's anything theology could or would do to reduce the level of ignorant deference to its own credentialed authority? To cease its egregious appeals to priming and confirmation bias, for example, and the fallacies of antiquity and popularity?

I do not.

I think that for centuries, despite a strong social trend toward better ethical practice everywhere -- in greater evidence, transparency, accountability in every profession from accounting to zoology, theology has recalcitrantly scorned all three, adhering to claims it cannot substantiate, ignoring contrary evidence in whatever weight and abundance, admitting few misgivings about the obscurity of its own origins, and acknowledging little accountability for its past and continuing ignorance and error in matters of history, morality and every field of science it has ever pronounced on.

In science, admitting ignorance and correcting error promptly and accountably enhance credibility, reliability and trust. Yet in religion, theologians act like doing so can only ever diminish their authority.

Perhaps they're right.

Else, why continue to embrace mediaeval ethical practices when the whole developed world has moved on?

common sense says it's right really how many people do you think have any equipment , anything to test or any knowledge on how to test what the so called scientists say about evolution...

so about 99.9% follow purely on faith....

I agree what you say, science is being wrong most the time, so i agree a science fact cannot be trusted as it is only our best guess at the time....
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 12:21:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 12:05:00 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 11:42:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:25:27 AM, graceofgod wrote:
don't forget 99.9% of believers in evolution do do through faith but we have schools to pressure new believers in to keeping the faith...

Did you invent or misreport that statistic, GoG? If not, please cite the credible, peer-reviewed paper reporting it.

I note this question remains unanswered. Do you stand by this statistic, or not?

In science, admitting ignorance and correcting error promptly and accountably enhance credibility, reliability and trust. Yet in religion, theologians act like doing so can only ever diminish their authority.
... a trait you seem to be perpetuating too.

common sense says it's right really how many people do you think have any equipment , anything to test or any knowledge on how to test what the so called scientists say about evolution...

I think you're straying off-topic, GoG. You're also avoiding taking responsibility for your own claims -- a trait that I have already said seems common to theology, and which you're doing nothing to refute.

I agree what you say, science is being wrong most the time,
I haven't said that.

so i agree a science fact cannot be trusted as it is only our best guess at the time....
Nor that.

But while you're marshaling the integrity to respond honestly regarding your supposed statistic, please consider this...

Other than ceasing all religious wars, no longer coercing conversions or persecuting unbelievers, generally respecting other faiths better, and possibly learning more about science, what do you believe Christians would do differently if they saw Jesus as a cherished sage, rather than a divinity?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 12:26:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 12:21:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/15/2015 12:05:00 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 11:42:37 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:25:27 AM, graceofgod wrote:
don't forget 99.9% of believers in evolution do do through faith but we have schools to pressure new believers in to keeping the faith...

Did you invent or misreport that statistic, GoG? If not, please cite the credible, peer-reviewed paper reporting it.

I note this question remains unanswered. Do you stand by this statistic, or not?

yes I do....

In science, admitting ignorance and correcting error promptly and accountably enhance credibility, reliability and trust. Yet in religion, theologians act like doing so can only ever diminish their authority.
... a trait you seem to be perpetuating too.

I disagree, having to change what you believe as in evolution makes the idea of facts very difficult as I said they are only the best guess at that time...

common sense says it's right really how many people do you think have any equipment , anything to test or any knowledge on how to test what the so called scientists say about evolution...

I think you're straying off-topic, GoG. You're also avoiding taking responsibility for your own claims -- a trait that I have already said seems common to theology, and which you're doing nothing to refute.

not at all it stands to reason very very few believers of evolution have the means or the understanding to test evolution and therefore believe on faith..

I agree what you say, science is being wrong most the time,
I haven't said that.

so i agree a science fact cannot be trusted as it is only our best guess at the time....
Nor that.

But while you're marshaling the integrity to respond honestly regarding your supposed statistic, please consider this...

Other than ceasing all religious wars, no longer coercing conversions or persecuting unbelievers, generally respecting other faiths better, and possibly learning more about science, what do you believe Christians would do differently if they saw Jesus as a cherished sage, rather than a divinity?

coercing conversion??

cherished sage??
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 12:31:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I seem to have overtaxed you, GoG. My apologies.

For your own peace of mind if not for a constructive conversation, please return to whatever it was you were doing that produced your unsubstantiated statistic.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 12:39:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 12:31:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
I seem to have overtaxed you, GoG. My apologies.

not at all you just don't seem to be explaining yourself ....

For your own peace of mind if not for a constructive conversation, please return to whatever it was you were doing that produced your unsubstantiated statistic.

I'm not sure there has been a report on it as such, but it is quite clear that the huge majority have no way of testing what they have been told....
cr_lewis
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 1:06:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 10:40:09 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:28:59 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:23:38 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:08:12 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

before doing anything, ask them in any version of the Bible where jesus said "im God" or "worship me" and see what happens.

the I am statements made by Jesus are quite clear, as is the alpha and omega statements in revelations....

God the father tells the angels to worship Jesus, it mentions many times where Jesus is worshiped ...

it was somebody's "dream" or Jesus said in his life time as written in the 4 Gospels? i said where Jesus himself said "im God" not what anonymous people thought about him.

Jesus himself made "I am" statements, to the jews "I am" is God... : :

Whenever God has me say, "I AM" while I'm preaching to his believers, it confuses them so that's the reason he doesn't have me say that too often.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 1:42:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 1:06:11 PM, cr_lewis wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:40:09 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:28:59 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:23:38 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:08:12 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

before doing anything, ask them in any version of the Bible where jesus said "im God" or "worship me" and see what happens.

the I am statements made by Jesus are quite clear, as is the alpha and omega statements in revelations....

God the father tells the angels to worship Jesus, it mentions many times where Jesus is worshiped ...

it was somebody's "dream" or Jesus said in his life time as written in the 4 Gospels? i said where Jesus himself said "im God" not what anonymous people thought about him.

Jesus himself made "I am" statements, to the jews "I am" is God... : :

Whenever God has me say, "I AM" while I'm preaching to his believers, it confuses them so that's the reason he doesn't have me say that too often.

It is you that is confused/ill, which is very sad.
cr_lewis
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 1:43:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 1:42:24 PM, JJ50 wrote:
At 8/15/2015 1:06:11 PM, cr_lewis wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:40:09 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:28:59 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:23:38 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:08:12 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

before doing anything, ask them in any version of the Bible where jesus said "im God" or "worship me" and see what happens.

the I am statements made by Jesus are quite clear, as is the alpha and omega statements in revelations....

God the father tells the angels to worship Jesus, it mentions many times where Jesus is worshiped ...

it was somebody's "dream" or Jesus said in his life time as written in the 4 Gospels? i said where Jesus himself said "im God" not what anonymous people thought about him.

Jesus himself made "I am" statements, to the jews "I am" is God... : :

Whenever God has me say, "I AM" while I'm preaching to his believers, it confuses them so that's the reason he doesn't have me say that too often.

It is you that is confused/ill, which is very sad. : :

Why be sad? I AM sure isn't.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 2:02:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm sorry I didn't recognise you there for a moment bog.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
cr_lewis
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 2:14:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 2:02:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
I'm sorry I didn't recognise you there for a moment bog. : :

Now that you and deem have announced my presence, the Roman guard who runs this show can try get rid of me again. LOL !!!!!!
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 2:19:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 6:12:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.


No you are not crazy, You are right to question this, I also doubt that we should regard Jesus as God, and I don't think that is the right view, although some profess it is, it is clearly not, however, I do believe it could be argued, That Jesus was perhaps the most accurate expression of Gods love, or morale.

The story of Jesus has fascinated many great thinkers and for good reason I would say, The idea that one person would allow himself or orchestrate his own sacrifice for the message of Gods love and to bear the burdens and sins of the people, ( regardless if true or not,) is one of the most touching and moving scenarios in the history of the world.


Or maybe not, but that is the way I see it.

There are many people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for a message. A Korean man just set himself on fire a few days ago in front of the Japanese embassy to protest Japan's lack of taking responsibility of the Korean comfort girls.

While it is not common in comparison of overall population, there are more than a few people who have been willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause. It is not as rare as Christians like to portray Jesus' death.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 4:33:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man"and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The name "Jesus" means "God saves". The Messiah or anointed one is supposed to be the King and Savior of the Jews. What is really being said here is that God is the savior of the Jews, not a man. There is a lot of convoluted theology, but it had to be that way for a reason.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
seeu46
Posts: 578
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 4:36:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 10:08:12 AM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

before doing anything, ask them in any version of the Bible where jesus said "im God" or "worship me" and see what happens.

Your tricks will not work here. Since he Jesus accepted worship 'every where'.

Even God says it.

Hebrews 1:6 (All the angels are told to worship Jesus) - "And then, when he presented his honored Son to the world, he(GOD) said, "Let all the angels of God worship him."

Matthew 2:11
And going into the house they saw the child with Mary his mother, and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Matthew 28:9
And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him.

John 9:38
He said, "Lord, I believe," and he worshiped him.

Every where in the bible they worshiped him. The better question is where did Jesus tell them to "STOP" worshiping him. Even as a baby they worshiped him......check mate.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 4:57:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

~~~~~~~

My computer had to do an automatic reset, so I had to quickly split up my post.

But these scriptures, if you understand them, prophecy the great apostasy of the church, which is to worship man as God. To worship man as God is the anti-christ. Thats right, to worship Jesus the man and prophet as God is to worship the anti-christ. Jesus is described as an "image" several times in the New Testament epistles, and is intended to represent something.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 6:12:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 10:25:27 AM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 10:14:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

The numbers in faith tend to sustain it. The more people around you believing what you believe, the more readily you'll believe it. Some 60-70% of all people of faith (whatever faith) adopt the faith of their parents, for example.

Right now, each new Christian helps to validate and secure a faith hemorrhaging adherents, and adds political power to a group struggling to maintain relevance in a world neither explained by theology nor morally requiring its traditional doctrines .

So beyond doctrinal admonitions to do so, there's strong psychological and social self-interest in Christians seeking to make more Christians, which is why some may at times ignore reasonable requests for rational and respectful deference to other views.

but don't forget 99.9% of believers in evolution do do through faith but we have schools to pressure new believers in to keeping the faith...

Ah, so you believe education is all about faith, just like your religion? And, the school system is pressuring students to keep this faith?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 9:01:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 12:39:53 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 8/15/2015 12:31:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
For your own peace of mind if not for a constructive conversation, please return to whatever it was you were doing that produced your unsubstantiated statistic.

I'm not sure there has been a report on it as such, but it is quite clear that the huge majority have no way of testing what they have been told....

I understand that you invented the previous statistic. Thank you for acknowledging so. I agree that your restatement is much more honest.

The question of how much effort it takes to validate science depends on exactly what you want to validate, and to what degree. For example, Newton's original laws of gravity were developed using balls and an inclined plane. You can repeat all those experiments across a few weekends if you want -- or come up with experiments of your own. Any kid with a stopwatch, a ball and some plyboard can get a basic notion of how gravity works.

For evolution, it's harder because a lot of the immediate evidence for evolution is indirect: genetic sequencing, fossils in rock strata, isotope dating, and so on. And a lot of the direct evidence isn't immediate: most of the really interesting speciation experiments take decades to run, though technically a layman could do some of them.

I think there are two efficient ways to validate evolutionary mechanisms, though they're still fairly onerous. One is in software, to show how speciation can happen (in fact, how it's virtually inevitable), just through the stochastic mechanisms of recombination mutation and selection. The other is what regulatory agencies call a 'desk-based' audit... one in which a person reasonably educated in statistics, scientific methodologies and published results, goes through the papers, the data and the methodologies -- especially those of key papers -- to trace how the results were derived and expose areas of methodological weakness.

Depending on level of mathematical skill and programming ability, a software-based genetic simulation might take a week to six months to make work, and would produce observable results. There are some great youtube clips on genetic programming and the kinds of things it can produce.

In a good science graduate, a desk-audit of the key papers in evolution can take about three months to undertake (I say this with confidence because PhD students normally do this as one of their first tasks.) In a bright, science-literate high school graduate I'd only be guessing, but I'd guess it might take around three years of full time effort to understand the papers, the math, the methods and the data.

Or you can do as I do, since I'm not a biologist. You can observe that OECD figures put research biologists at about 20,000 in the world. You can estimate the number of bright new PhD students focusing on some evolutionary-related question each year (let's conservatively say 100, though the number might be more like five times that), you can ask yourself how many times the same key papers have been reviewed for errors and gaps in recent decades (which is how PhDs find new questions to answer), and ask whether anything you could possibly do in a year of your life would be likely to exceed the assurance provided by 100 man-years of scrutiny applied to evolution each and every year over many decades by some of the brightest and freshest young science-trained eyes in biology.

In my case, I think it wouldn't. So I'm happy to read and examine individual papers, while trusting that the field is assured by adequate levels of competent critical, independent scrutiny.

So why doesn't this apply to theology as well as it applies to biology?

Simple. Theology isn't science. In particular, as I pointed out above, theology is unwedded to (and outright evasive of) the principles of evidence, transparency and accountability. If it were otherwise, theology would claim a great deal less, and constantly whittle away at its own claims unless and until it can produce observations and evidence to support them.

If you can't see that yet GoG, then your chief issue probably isn't science; you may need a better understanding of the role evidence plays in professional ethics and critical thought.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 9:43:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
GoG, in afterthought, if you'd like some positive evidence that science routinely challenges and critiques its own work to date, here's a fun one.

Gregor Mendel, the 19th century Moravian friar whose experiments with pea-plants caused him to be called the Father of Genetics, published the bulk of this seminal work in 1866. However, in 1900 his detailed laboratory notes were uncovered, including detailed data (nowadays we'd make the data available online), and as is common in science, his experiments were reconstructed in 1936 to check them -- only to discover a notable and concerning lack of error. [https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au...]

Error is critical in science -- it speaks to both the precision of the method, and the independence of the analysis. Get too much wrong, and either your methods are sloppy or your theory is incorrect; but get too little wrong, and your methods are suspect and so are you. Mendel's results were seen as 'too good to be true', and the controversy over whether his 'perfect' data were dishonest, or merely a methodological oversight, has continued to today [https://books.google.com.au...]

This is quite usual. Scientists feel free to demand data of one another, and the right to repeat experiments. If you don't supply the data, that's considered unprofessional and suspect. Supply insufficient data, and the whole of the discipline will tell you so.

But does theology ever do the same?

In all the history of Christian thought, has any respected Christian theologian ever said the obvious: that the Apostolic attestations of the divinity of Jesus simply aren't original enough, credible enough, independent enough, corroborated enough, or big enough in scope to support the monstrous weight of the conclusion?

Has any respected theologian observed that a sage who spends no time at all with the Zoroastrians (the biggest monotheistic faith of the day), who never travels to a major world urban centre, but instead spends his time in the Imperial boondocks talking to a tiny linguistic group about how to reform their xenophobic little faith, who reproduces miracles previously attested in Zoroastrianism and Greek Paganism, only to be executed without official documentation, and to be officially ignored for centuries thereafter -- is actually not the credible biography of a divinity with a vision for the world?

Biology has just emerged from a 72 year-long controversy over whether the Father of Genetics genuinely confused pinky-white pea-flowers with whitey-pink -- attestation enough that science would have that conversation frankly and fearlessly.

So why doesn't theology do the same?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 9:56:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 4:40:47 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
What exactly are some of our fellow human beings/christians asking of us ?

That some time ago there was a man, flesh and blood, born of a woman, BUT you should accept this man as GOD, as divine incarnate ?

So I should accept as GOD, a man whom I have never met, a man who is not the first to claim or claimed by others to be some sort of divine entity and a man whos claims about him can't really be checked out (the miracle claims) only asserted as true.

May I suggest a more prudent approach before we start declaring any man a God ? Or am I just speaking crazy here.

haha dude you are hilarious :'D