Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Religious Conundrums (Just For Giggles)

Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If the answer is no, then how is He not an atheist?

Point: Saying that,being God, He believes in Himself, eliminates Him from being an atheist fails, because He is not God to himself, i.e. He did not create Himself. As such, according to fundamentalist Christianity, He has no God over Himself, and therefore believes in no God.

If the answer is yes, then it must be said that Christians worship an atheist.

Imagine that.

And no, I'm not an atheist.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 3:40:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I like this one. Jesus was 100% god and 100% human. That adds up to a 200% composition.

Wow. Religious mathematics is fun.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 3:45:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If a doctor has not doctor, does that mean he doesn't believe in doctors?

And no, I'm not an atheist.

Nor a comedian.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
ReformedPresbyterian72598
Posts: 293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 3:59:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

Creature, or Creator? :) Sovereign, or not?

If the answer is no, then how is He not an atheist?

Point: Saying that,being God, He believes in Himself, eliminates Him from being an atheist fails, because He is not God to himself, i.e. He did not create Himself. As such, according to fundamentalist Christianity, He has no God over Himself, and therefore believes in no God.

All cute fun lol, but again, all-sovereign or no? If you define God as one who believes, then, yeah, this works. But, if God is omnipotent since when is He one who believes?

If the answer is yes, then it must be said that Christians worship an atheist.

Imagine that.

And no, I'm not an atheist.

Agnostic(ish)?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 4:22:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 3:40:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
I like this one. Jesus was 100% god and 100% human. That adds up to a 200% composition.

Wow. Religious mathematics is fun.

According to Christ, we are also 100% god and 100% human. (John 10:34) But if they are the same thing, then it is just 100%.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 4:26:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 3:45:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If a doctor has not doctor, does that mean he doesn't believe in doctors?

Do you know any doctors that don't have a doctor?

Or, do you know any doctors who have said, "There are no doctors beside me"?

And no, I'm not an atheist.

Nor a comedian.

Wasn't trying to be funny.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 4:29:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 3:59:04 AM, ReformedPresbyterian72598 wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

Creature, or Creator? :) Sovereign, or not?

How does sovereignty change my point?

If the answer is no, then how is He not an atheist?

Point: Saying that,being God, He believes in Himself, eliminates Him from being an atheist fails, because He is not God to himself, i.e. He did not create Himself. As such, according to fundamentalist Christianity, He has no God over Himself, and therefore believes in no God.

All cute fun lol, but again, all-sovereign or no? If you define God as one who believes, then, yeah, this works. But, if God is omnipotent since when is He one who believes?

So, we worship someone who does not believe?

If the answer is yes, then it must be said that Christians worship an atheist.

Imagine that.

And no, I'm not an atheist.

Agnostic(ish)?

Christian. Though most will disagree.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 4:55:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 4:22:31 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:40:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
I like this one. Jesus was 100% god and 100% human. That adds up to a 200% composition.

Wow. Religious mathematics is fun.

According to Christ, we are also 100% god and 100% human. (John 10:34) But if they are the same thing, then it is just 100%.

If there is no distinction between god and human then that makes a mockery of the dictionary.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 4:59:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 4:26:06 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:45:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If a doctor has not doctor, does that mean he doesn't believe in doctors?

Do you know any doctors that don't have a doctor?

Or, do you know any doctors who have said, "There are no doctors beside me"?

Whether I have or not, IF one said such a thing, does that mean that he just doesn't believe in doctors?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:01:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 4:55:16 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:22:31 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:40:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
I like this one. Jesus was 100% god and 100% human. That adds up to a 200% composition.

Wow. Religious mathematics is fun.

According to Christ, we are also 100% god and 100% human. (John 10:34) But if they are the same thing, then it is just 100%.

If there is no distinction between god and human then that makes a mockery of the dictionary.

Not if "god" has more than one definition in the Hebrew and Greek languages.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:06:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 4:59:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:26:06 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:45:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If a doctor has not doctor, does that mean he doesn't believe in doctors?

Do you know any doctors that don't have a doctor?

Or, do you know any doctors who have said, "There are no doctors beside me"?

Whether I have or not, IF one said such a thing, does that mean that he just doesn't believe in doctors?

I would have to be able to read his mind to answer that correctly. However, I do know that if he said such a thing, he would be both a fool and incorrect, because there are in fact other doctors.

Can the same be said of God and Gods?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:08:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:06:16 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:59:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:26:06 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:45:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If a doctor has not doctor, does that mean he doesn't believe in doctors?

Do you know any doctors that don't have a doctor?

Or, do you know any doctors who have said, "There are no doctors beside me"?

Whether I have or not, IF one said such a thing, does that mean that he just doesn't believe in doctors?

I would have to be able to read his mind to answer that correctly. However, I do know that if he said such a thing, he would be both a fool and incorrect, because there are in fact other doctors.

Can the same be said of God and Gods?

I didn't ask if he was a fool, incorrect, or anything else. I simply asked a "yes" or "no" question.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:09:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:01:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:55:16 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:22:31 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:40:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
I like this one. Jesus was 100% god and 100% human. That adds up to a 200% composition.

Wow. Religious mathematics is fun.

According to Christ, we are also 100% god and 100% human. (John 10:34) But if they are the same thing, then it is just 100%.

If there is no distinction between god and human then that makes a mockery of the dictionary.

Not if "god" has more than one definition in the Hebrew and Greek languages.

In any language 'god' has a different meaning to 'man' otherwise no new distinct word would be needed.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:22:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 3:45:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If a doctor has not doctor, does that mean he doesn't believe in doctors?

Doctoring is a professional occupation of humans. It requires a high level of training. There is no such thing as an entity which we could label "Doctor" with the essence of being a medical practitioner. God did not train to be godly. Your analogy fails.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:23:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:08:09 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:06:16 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:59:54 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:26:06 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:45:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If a doctor has not doctor, does that mean he doesn't believe in doctors?

Do you know any doctors that don't have a doctor?

Or, do you know any doctors who have said, "There are no doctors beside me"?

Whether I have or not, IF one said such a thing, does that mean that he just doesn't believe in doctors?

I would have to be able to read his mind to answer that correctly. However, I do know that if he said such a thing, he would be both a fool and incorrect, because there are in fact other doctors.

Can the same be said of God and Gods?

I didn't ask if he was a fool, incorrect, or anything else. I simply asked a "yes" or "no" question.

You did not simply ask a question. You gave an a false comparison. The only way the comparison would properly comply is if there were a question of just one doctor as opposed to many doctors. But we have proof that there are many doctors, so it is unreasonable to ask if a doctor does not have a doctor, does he not believe in doctors.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:25:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:22:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:45:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If a doctor has not doctor, does that mean he doesn't believe in doctors?

Doctoring is a professional occupation of humans. It requires a high level of training. There is no such thing as an entity which we could label "Doctor" with the essence of being a medical practitioner. God did not train to be godly. Your analogy fails.

Training, or the lack thereof, wasn't a part of the analogy and is irrelevant.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:32:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:25:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:22:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:45:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If a doctor has not doctor, does that mean he doesn't believe in doctors?

Doctoring is a professional occupation of humans. It requires a high level of training. There is no such thing as an entity which we could label "Doctor" with the essence of being a medical practitioner. God did not train to be godly. Your analogy fails.

Training, or the lack thereof, wasn't a part of the analogy and is irrelevant.

Since being a doctor requires training and is an occupation, then it very much is the crux of your analogy. Clearly it is inapt since godhood is inate.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:35:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:09:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:01:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:55:16 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:22:31 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:40:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
I like this one. Jesus was 100% god and 100% human. That adds up to a 200% composition.

Wow. Religious mathematics is fun.

According to Christ, we are also 100% god and 100% human. (John 10:34) But if they are the same thing, then it is just 100%.

If there is no distinction between god and human then that makes a mockery of the dictionary.

Not if "god" has more than one definition in the Hebrew and Greek languages.

In any language 'god' has a different meaning to 'man' otherwise no new distinct word would be needed.

In Hebrews 12:9 and 12:23, we are called spirits. Spirit has a different meaning than man, as well as a different composition, and yet the passages imply that spirit and man are one in "essence" for lack of a better term. The same can be said for John 10:34.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:37:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:32:54 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:25:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:22:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:45:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If a doctor has not doctor, does that mean he doesn't believe in doctors?

Doctoring is a professional occupation of humans. It requires a high level of training. There is no such thing as an entity which we could label "Doctor" with the essence of being a medical practitioner. God did not train to be godly. Your analogy fails.

Training, or the lack thereof, wasn't a part of the analogy and is irrelevant.

Since being a doctor requires training and is an occupation, then it very much is the crux of your analogy. Clearly it is inapt since godhood is inate.

So you think if a doctor doesn't have a doctor, he STILL believes in doctors - and the "reason" is that "it requires training." Pffffffffffft.

BUT ... since God doesn't have a God, then He doesn't believe in God - and the "reason" is "no training required for the job."

LMAO. Man, oh, man

How about a whore doesn't have a whore, so the whore doesn't believe in whore? No training required for that one - just lay there.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:47:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:35:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:09:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:01:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:55:16 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:22:31 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:40:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
I like this one. Jesus was 100% god and 100% human. That adds up to a 200% composition.

Wow. Religious mathematics is fun.

According to Christ, we are also 100% god and 100% human. (John 10:34) But if they are the same thing, then it is just 100%.

If there is no distinction between god and human then that makes a mockery of the dictionary.

Not if "god" has more than one definition in the Hebrew and Greek languages.

In any language 'god' has a different meaning to 'man' otherwise no new distinct word would be needed.

In Hebrews 12:9 and 12:23, we are called spirits. Spirit has a different meaning than man, as well as a different composition, and yet the passages imply that spirit and man are one in "essence" for lack of a better term.

Spirits as in 'souls' (another unsubstantiated assertion), not gods.

The same can be said for John 10:34.

That's just Jesus trying to weasel out of answering the question of his godhood. It's a reference to Psalm 82:6 and means nothing other then Jews considered themselves children of god, the paternal mindset. It's pure metaphor.

When are you going to reference a Hebrew or Greek dictionary where 'god' means the exact same thing as 'human'?
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:53:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:37:58 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:32:54 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:25:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:22:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:45:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If a doctor has not doctor, does that mean he doesn't believe in doctors?

Doctoring is a professional occupation of humans. It requires a high level of training. There is no such thing as an entity which we could label "Doctor" with the essence of being a medical practitioner. God did not train to be godly. Your analogy fails.

Training, or the lack thereof, wasn't a part of the analogy and is irrelevant.

Since being a doctor requires training and is an occupation, then it very much is the crux of your analogy. Clearly it is inapt since godhood is inate.

So you think if a doctor doesn't have a doctor, he STILL believes in doctors - and the "reason" is that "it requires training." Pffffffffffft.

That's not what I said or even implied. You don't have to invent my position. I stated it quite clearly. Your analogy is inapt since it compares apples with oranges.

BUT ... since God doesn't have a God, then He doesn't believe in God - and the "reason" is "no training required for the job."

Again, this is a strawman of your own creation.

LMAO. Man, oh, man

How about a whore doesn't have a whore, so the whore doesn't believe in whore? No training required for that one - just lay there.

Whoring is also an occupation - the oldest I'm led to believe. A whore is a human being who happens to be engaged in a particular occupation. Another inapt analogy.
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:57:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:47:53 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:35:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:09:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:01:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:55:16 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:22:31 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:40:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
I like this one. Jesus was 100% god and 100% human. That adds up to a 200% composition.

Wow. Religious mathematics is fun.

According to Christ, we are also 100% god and 100% human. (John 10:34) But if they are the same thing, then it is just 100%.

If there is no distinction between god and human then that makes a mockery of the dictionary.

Not if "god" has more than one definition in the Hebrew and Greek languages.

In any language 'god' has a different meaning to 'man' otherwise no new distinct word would be needed.

In Hebrews 12:9 and 12:23, we are called spirits. Spirit has a different meaning than man, as well as a different composition, and yet the passages imply that spirit and man are one in "essence" for lack of a better term.

Spirits as in 'souls' (another unsubstantiated assertion), not gods.

The same can be said for John 10:34.

That's just Jesus trying to weasel out of answering the question of his godhood. It's a reference to Psalm 82:6 and means nothing other then Jews considered themselves children of god, the paternal mindset. It's pure metaphor.

When are you going to reference a Hebrew or Greek dictionary where 'god' means the exact same thing as 'human'?

You are offering interpretations bases on opinion. I am offering comparisons that viably allow for god and man to be the same thing.

The word "man" does not have the same definition as "engineer", and yet an engineer can be a man. It is not 100% of "man" plus 100% of "engineer" equals 200%. It's 100% of a man who is an engineer. In that sense, "man" and "engineer" are the same thing, even when a dictionary or language disagrees.

The word "god" has a different definition in the context, (however you interpret it), just as "engineer" can have a different definition, and be defined as "man" in the context.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
annanicole
Posts: 19,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:58:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:53:57 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:37:58 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:32:54 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:25:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:22:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:45:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If a doctor has not doctor, does that mean he doesn't believe in doctors?

Doctoring is a professional occupation of humans. It requires a high level of training. There is no such thing as an entity which we could label "Doctor" with the essence of being a medical practitioner. God did not train to be godly. Your analogy fails.

Training, or the lack thereof, wasn't a part of the analogy and is irrelevant.

Since being a doctor requires training and is an occupation, then it very much is the crux of your analogy. Clearly it is inapt since godhood is inate.

So you think if a doctor doesn't have a doctor, he STILL believes in doctors - and the "reason" is that "it requires training." Pffffffffffft.

That's not what I said or even implied. You don't have to invent my position. I stated it quite clearly. Your analogy is inapt since it compares apples with oranges.

BUT ... since God doesn't have a God, then He doesn't believe in God - and the "reason" is "no training required for the job."

Again, this is a strawman of your own creation.

LMAO. Man, oh, man

How about a whore doesn't have a whore, so the whore doesn't believe in whore? No training required for that one - just lay there.

Whoring is also an occupation - the oldest I'm led to believe.

No, it's not. Prostitution is. Whoring is a pastime.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:30:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:57:37 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:47:53 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:35:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:09:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:01:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:55:16 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:22:31 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:40:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
I like this one. Jesus was 100% god and 100% human. That adds up to a 200% composition.

Wow. Religious mathematics is fun.

According to Christ, we are also 100% god and 100% human. (John 10:34) But if they are the same thing, then it is just 100%.

If there is no distinction between god and human then that makes a mockery of the dictionary.

Not if "god" has more than one definition in the Hebrew and Greek languages.

In any language 'god' has a different meaning to 'man' otherwise no new distinct word would be needed.

In Hebrews 12:9 and 12:23, we are called spirits. Spirit has a different meaning than man, as well as a different composition, and yet the passages imply that spirit and man are one in "essence" for lack of a better term.

Spirits as in 'souls' (another unsubstantiated assertion), not gods.

The same can be said for John 10:34.

That's just Jesus trying to weasel out of answering the question of his godhood. It's a reference to Psalm 82:6 and means nothing other then Jews considered themselves children of god, the paternal mindset. It's pure metaphor.

When are you going to reference a Hebrew or Greek dictionary where 'god' means the exact same thing as 'human'?

You are offering interpretations bases on opinion. I am offering comparisons that viably allow for god and man to be the same thing.

That's your opinion. Lol.

The word "man" does not have the same definition as "engineer", and yet an engineer can be a man. It is not 100% of "man" plus 100% of "engineer" equals 200%. It's 100% of a man who is an engineer. In that sense, "man" and "engineer" are the same thing, even when a dictionary or language disagrees.

You must be joking. An 'engineer' is an occupation taken by some human beings. You are comparing an acquired occupation with godhood, which is inate if it has any existence at all. That's chalk and cheese. "Man" and "engineer" are not the same thing. A man is a specimen of a particular species. An engineer is an occupation performed by some members of that species. You seek to deny the plain meanings of words to make your case. Being an engineer is an attribute of a particular man. You cannot be 100% of an attribute. That makes no sense. It's like saying a banana is 100% yellow.

The word "god" has a different definition in the context, (however you interpret it), just as "engineer" can have a different definition, and be defined as "man" in the context.

That's just hand waving. You need to learn what a metaphor is and how it is used.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:34:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 5:58:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:53:57 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:37:58 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:32:54 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:25:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:22:08 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:45:41 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:07:11 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
If God the Father has no God, does that make him an atheist?

If a doctor has not doctor, does that mean he doesn't believe in doctors?

Doctoring is a professional occupation of humans. It requires a high level of training. There is no such thing as an entity which we could label "Doctor" with the essence of being a medical practitioner. God did not train to be godly. Your analogy fails.

Training, or the lack thereof, wasn't a part of the analogy and is irrelevant.

Since being a doctor requires training and is an occupation, then it very much is the crux of your analogy. Clearly it is inapt since godhood is inate.

So you think if a doctor doesn't have a doctor, he STILL believes in doctors - and the "reason" is that "it requires training." Pffffffffffft.

That's not what I said or even implied. You don't have to invent my position. I stated it quite clearly. Your analogy is inapt since it compares apples with oranges.

BUT ... since God doesn't have a God, then He doesn't believe in God - and the "reason" is "no training required for the job."

Again, this is a strawman of your own creation.

LMAO. Man, oh, man

How about a whore doesn't have a whore, so the whore doesn't believe in whore? No training required for that one - just lay there.

Whoring is also an occupation - the oldest I'm led to believe.

No, it's not. Prostitution is. Whoring is a pastime.

whore
verb
gerund or present participle: whoring
(of a woman) work as a prostitute.
"she spent her life whoring for dangerous men"
synonyms:work as a prostitute, prostitute oneself, sell one's body, sell oneself, walk the streets, be on the streets, solicit, work in the sex industry; More
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:56:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 6:30:17 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:57:37 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:47:53 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:35:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:09:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:01:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:55:16 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:22:31 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:40:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
I like this one. Jesus was 100% god and 100% human. That adds up to a 200% composition.

Wow. Religious mathematics is fun.

According to Christ, we are also 100% god and 100% human. (John 10:34) But if they are the same thing, then it is just 100%.

If there is no distinction between god and human then that makes a mockery of the dictionary.

Not if "god" has more than one definition in the Hebrew and Greek languages.

In any language 'god' has a different meaning to 'man' otherwise no new distinct word would be needed.

In Hebrews 12:9 and 12:23, we are called spirits. Spirit has a different meaning than man, as well as a different composition, and yet the passages imply that spirit and man are one in "essence" for lack of a better term.

Spirits as in 'souls' (another unsubstantiated assertion), not gods.

The same can be said for John 10:34.

That's just Jesus trying to weasel out of answering the question of his godhood. It's a reference to Psalm 82:6 and means nothing other then Jews considered themselves children of god, the paternal mindset. It's pure metaphor.

When are you going to reference a Hebrew or Greek dictionary where 'god' means the exact same thing as 'human'?

You are offering interpretations bases on opinion. I am offering comparisons that viably allow for god and man to be the same thing.

That's your opinion. Lol.

No argument. But the comparisons are still valid.

The word "man" does not have the same definition as "engineer", and yet an engineer can be a man. It is not 100% of "man" plus 100% of "engineer" equals 200%. It's 100% of a man who is an engineer. In that sense, "man" and "engineer" are the same thing, even when a dictionary or language disagrees.

You must be joking. An 'engineer' is an occupation taken by some human beings. You are comparing an acquired occupation with godhood, which is inate if it has any existence at all. That's chalk and cheese. "Man" and "engineer" are not the same thing. A man is a specimen of a particular species. An engineer is an occupation performed by some members of that species. You seek to deny the plain meanings of words to make your case. Being an engineer is an attribute of a particular man. You cannot be 100% of an attribute. That makes no sense. It's like saying a banana is 100% yellow.

And yet when I point at a man who is an engineer, I can say "That is a man" or That is an engineer" while pointing at the same entity. That "entity" fits both definitions in the proper context.

The word "god" has a different definition in the context, (however you interpret it), just as "engineer" can have a different definition, and be defined as "man" in the context.

That's just hand waving. You need to learn what a metaphor is and how it is used.

Metaphors can be deceiving. Kind of like hand waving. Which is why many people fail to see them.

I stopped letting people tell me what I need to learn a long time ago. Because I learned that most people give themselves intellectual credit they have far from earned. They're the ones who need to do the learning.

What makes you think god isn't an occupation? Technically, being a father is an occupation, but not one that that comes from getting hired. Father is also a title, just like god.

Does 100% of "man" plus 100% of "father" equal 200%?
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 11:46:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 6:56:20 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 6:30:17 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:57:37 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:47:53 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:35:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:09:35 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 5:01:08 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:55:16 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/28/2015 4:22:31 AM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:40:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
I like this one. Jesus was 100% god and 100% human. That adds up to a 200% composition.

Wow. Religious mathematics is fun.

According to Christ, we are also 100% god and 100% human. (John 10:34) But if they are the same thing, then it is just 100%.

If there is no distinction between god and human then that makes a mockery of the dictionary.

Not if "god" has more than one definition in the Hebrew and Greek languages.

In any language 'god' has a different meaning to 'man' otherwise no new distinct word would be needed.

In Hebrews 12:9 and 12:23, we are called spirits. Spirit has a different meaning than man, as well as a different composition, and yet the passages imply that spirit and man are one in "essence" for lack of a better term.

Spirits as in 'souls' (another unsubstantiated assertion), not gods.

The same can be said for John 10:34.

That's just Jesus trying to weasel out of answering the question of his godhood. It's a reference to Psalm 82:6 and means nothing other then Jews considered themselves children of god, the paternal mindset. It's pure metaphor.

When are you going to reference a Hebrew or Greek dictionary where 'god' means the exact same thing as 'human'?

You are offering interpretations bases on opinion. I am offering comparisons that viably allow for god and man to be the same thing.

That's your opinion. Lol.

No argument. But the comparisons are still valid.

The word "man" does not have the same definition as "engineer", and yet an engineer can be a man. It is not 100% of "man" plus 100% of "engineer" equals 200%. It's 100% of a man who is an engineer. In that sense, "man" and "engineer" are the same thing, even when a dictionary or language disagrees.

You must be joking. An 'engineer' is an occupation taken by some human beings. You are comparing an acquired occupation with godhood, which is inate if it has any existence at all. That's chalk and cheese. "Man" and "engineer" are not the same thing. A man is a specimen of a particular species. An engineer is an occupation performed by some members of that species. You seek to deny the plain meanings of words to make your case. Being an engineer is an attribute of a particular man. You cannot be 100% of an attribute. That makes no sense. It's like saying a banana is 100% yellow.

And yet when I point at a man who is an engineer, I can say "That is a man" or That is an engineer" while pointing at the same entity. That "entity" fits both definitions in the proper context.

But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the 100% man can be some percentage something else. The man can be a father, husband, handyman, dishwasher, gardener, sportsman, etc. as well as an engineer. These are all facets of the life of the man, but he is still only 100% man. These multiple roles that he plays aren't separate and cumulative when talking about what comprises the man. To suggest otherwise leads to absurdity. The same man is then 100% man, 100% engineer, 100% father, 100% husband, and so on. Ludicrous.

The word "god" has a different definition in the context, (however you interpret it), just as "engineer" can have a different definition, and be defined as "man" in the context.

That's just hand waving. You need to learn what a metaphor is and how it is used.

Metaphors can be deceiving. Kind of like hand waving. Which is why many people fail to see them.

Yes, exactly.

I stopped letting people tell me what I need to learn a long time ago. Because I learned that most people give themselves intellectual credit they have far from earned. They're the ones who need to do the learning.

Um, you're the one who missed the metaphor and read the text literally.

What makes you think god isn't an occupation? Technically, being a father is an occupation, but not one that that comes from getting hired. Father is also a title, just like god.

You can't be serious. Your fellow Christians can set you straight.

Does 100% of "man" plus 100% of "father" equal 200%?

You tell me. As I have been saying all along, there is a category error here. On the one hand you are talking about a being. On the other, you are talking about a role played by that being.

When Christians talk about Jesus being 100% man and 100% god, I am fairly sure they are not referring to him playing the role of a god. Is such a thing even possible?
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 2:49:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Instead of you telling me how wrong I am, or how ludicrous I'm being for another 20 posts, why don't you tell me exactly what you believe the Christian God is. Or what you believe Christians believe He is. Then tell me what a god (little "g" ) is in the Bible.

I realize that I will accuse you of interpretation, everybody does. But let's look at that interpretation.

Perhaps that will help to straighten out the wrong and the ludicrous.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 3:39:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 2:49:17 PM, Kyle_the_Heretic wrote:
Instead of you telling me how wrong I am, or how ludicrous I'm being for another 20 posts, why don't you tell me exactly what you believe the Christian God is. Or what you believe Christians believe He is. Then tell me what a god (little "g" ) is in the Bible.

I realize that I will accuse you of interpretation, everybody does. But let's look at that interpretation.

Perhaps that will help to straighten out the wrong and the ludicrous.

There is only one issue here, Kyle, and you dance around it. My interpretation of what Christians believe God to be is not really relevant. A simple dictionary search would provide that information for you:

God
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.


You then ask for the little 'g' god:

2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"


Now back to the issue at hand, Jesus being 100% man and 100% god. You seem to be hinting that you want to equivocate on which god is being referred to in the second 100%. Obviously it's the Christian God. That is Christian doctrine, after all.

However, let me throw you a bone and let you have the little 'g' god. How does that help you? Can Jesus be 100% human and 100% superhuman? Is that a coherent concept?
onespaniard
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 3:47:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 3:40:10 AM, dee-em wrote:
I like this one. Jesus was 100% god and 100% human. That adds up to a 200% composition.

Wow. Religious mathematics is fun. : :

Jesus was 100 % human who knew that creation was 100% from God.