tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post7010428572282786650..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-83456085492088290352010-07-28T00:08:38.681-04:002010-07-28T00:08:38.681-04:00I'm still waiting for my reply after two weeks...I'm still waiting for my reply after two weeks...Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08827731848618933239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21851821598347709892010-07-14T02:46:18.487-04:002010-07-14T02:46:18.487-04:00Regarding #6, are you referring to the Book of Job...Regarding #6, are you referring to the Book of Job here, for example?Rosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08827731848618933239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10762810880945111032010-07-13T15:25:26.439-04:002010-07-13T15:25:26.439-04:00@Lvka:
Why so many smilies? Harry presented some ...@Lvka:<br /><br />Why so many smilies? Harry presented some points for consideration and you seem to have simply responded in a falsely acquiescing manner. It's weird.jwhendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03615608336736450543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54313139767133755722010-07-13T12:17:37.663-04:002010-07-13T12:17:37.663-04:00Well... for starters, we burn our incense vicariou...Well... for starters, we burn our incense vicariously, so that God might not burn *us* instead, in hell, for all eternity. :-) Since Protestants don't use it in their sevices, the all-devouring wrath of God will consume them forever, as the Priest told you. :-) <br /><br />And besides: the Church Fathers were great wonderworkers, so they had no problem re-adjusting the length and size of their noses whenever they grew out of proportions. :-)The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36155447643962890162010-07-12T23:35:10.273-04:002010-07-12T23:35:10.273-04:00When it comes to honesty, the authors, redactors a...When it comes to honesty, the authors, redactors and editors of the Biblical Canon and the so called faith promoting religious junk bond Church Fathers are noting less the Bernard Madoffs and Lou Pearlmans of <b>the total truth Judeo-Christian religious traditions. </b> <br /><br />Like the investors in Madoff’s and Pearlmans’s Ponzi Schemes, the sincere religious faithful (and 10 % plus tithe money) investor is banking on the fact the his or her Bible is just what his religious sect said it is: <b>A direct voice of God that one can invest one’s earthly and spiritual future in.</b><br /> <br />But just like all Ponzi Schemes, modern and critical investigations of the Biblical claims are proving to be the undoing of a Christian investment industry raking in over 5 billion dollars annually while its honest and sincere believing faithful go to bed every night thinking and knowing that what they have come to accept as total and absolute truth just can’t be a well developed tradition with its roots in an ancient fraud. <br /><br />In this case, critical inquiries into the so-called an all truth religious system (such as found here at DC) are proving to be the undoing of <i>"honest lies"</i> that have promoted and fed on an illusion of hope and peace.Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78504107643632558672010-07-12T18:10:30.740-04:002010-07-12T18:10:30.740-04:00Part 2:
F. Diocletian was convinced that all of ...Part 2: <br /><br />F. Diocletian was convinced that all of George's miracles were done by magic. He, therefore, called upon Athanasius the Magician to break this magic. Athanasius held two vials in his hands. If the Saint drank the first one, he would go insane, if he drank the second one he would die. The Saint took the first vial and prayed. He drank its contents and there was no effect.<br /><br />G. Once again George appeared before Diocletian who ordered that Saint George accompany him to the temple and sacrifice to the gods. When they arrived at the temple, Saint George made the sign of the cross and the idols were again destroyed. The people and the priests were furious and demanded that Diocletian have the Saint executed. Saint George was taken out of the city and as he turned his head toward the executioner, he was beheaded.<br /><br />Then we come to the ONLY miracle (lie) St. George is really known for:<br /><br /><b>In the history of our Church, we find a myth related to a dragon and Saint George. This dragon threatened the idolaters in the area of Atalia. The people were forced to live inside the walls of their city. This prevented them from tending their fields and grazing their sheep. Every year, they would sacrifice a young girl to the dragon. When Saint George arrived in this area, the King's daughter was about to be sacrificed. After subduing the dragon, Saint George placed a rope around its neck. He then gave the rope to the princess so that she could lead the beast back to the city. Thence, he slaughtered the terror and subsequently baptized thousands of the city's inhabitants.</b><br /><br />Again, despite all the above miracles (lies) about St. George, the only one he is really known for is now called a “myth”. <br /> <br />Lvka, why is the dragon story now considered myth? Could it be we can prove dragons (as depicted in the Holy Icon) never existed while lies about St. George and the Roman Emperor Diocletian seem more reasonable to the Orthodox faithful?Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23680743174432056922010-07-12T18:01:47.348-04:002010-07-12T18:01:47.348-04:00Thanks Gandolf! Very good point.
Part 1
Now back...Thanks Gandolf! Very good point.<br /><br />Part 1<br />Now back to Saint George and more lies supported by the Greek Orthodox Church which, by the way, has ALL the TRUTH. (<b>It as good thing that the Holy Church Fathers who created these lies weren’t like Pinocchio. If they had been cursed with Pinocchio’s punishment for lying, most all the Orthodox Holy Church Fathers could pole-vault with their noses!</b>) <br /><br /><i>Now the life of St. Geroge as taught by the Orthodox Church:</i><br /><br />A. The Emperor ordered this Christian taken to prison and that a boulder be placed on his chest as a form of torture. The next morning Diocletian ordered that the prisoner be brought before him for questioning. George stood steadfast and told Diocletian of his belief in the riches of the Kingdom of Heaven.<br /><br />B. The Emperor then summoned the executioners to take the Saint and have him bound to the rim of a wheel set with sharp spikes.// When the Saint appeared before Diocletian not only was he unharmed, but an angelic aura had settled about him. Suddenly, two officers of the Roman army, Anatolios and Protoleon, appeared before Diocletian with two thousand soldiers. They admitted their belief in Christ and Diocletian had them all executed.<br /><br />C. He then ordered his soldiers to dig a pit and fill it with lime. The Saint was then drenched with water and thrown into the pit. The water and lime would slowly destroy the Saint's body. After three days, Diocletian instructed the soldiers to clear the pit. To the surprise of the soldiers and the Emperor, Saint George sat at the bottom of the pit unharmed.<br /><br />D. The Emperor then ordered that iron sandals be tied to the feet of the Saint and that he be made to run. As he ran, he was beaten. As he ran, he was beaten. One of Diocletian's advisors, Magnentios, ordered George to perform a miracle. They happened to pass by a tomb of a man who had been dead for many years. // Diocletian asked the resurrected man who he was and when he had died. He told Diocletian that he had lived before Christ had come on the Earth, and because he was an idolater, he had burned in the fires of Hell during all those years. Many idolaters were converted to Christianity because of this great miracle.<br /><br />E. The next day, Diocletian met with his noblemen to determine Saint George's fate. They decided to beat the Saint mercilessly. The Saint nevertheless remained unharmed and retained his angelic appearance.Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12450159529915385542010-07-12T14:25:29.876-04:002010-07-12T14:25:29.876-04:00Hey Lvka! Thanks!
Good to see you are still cont...Hey Lvka! Thanks!<br /><br /> <b>Good to see you are still contending for the one and only true Orthodox Faith! (LOL)</b> (Also, good to see you are still avoiding the question again since Holy Icons also depict the dragon as well as Jesus.)<br /><br />Now let’s look at some practical questions that all the readers here at DC (Christian or not) can understand and relate to:<br /><br /><b>Why do Greek Orthodox have to spend 3 plus hours standing on their feet (suffering) during their Sunday service breathing the polluted smoke of burning incense and listening to a service mostly in Greek (which many don’t understand) to get to Heaven;<i> while a Baptists can sit comfortably in a soft padded pew listening and singing along to contemporary music enjoying themselves for only 45 minutes to an hour and accomplish exactly the same thing?</i></b><br /><br />So let’s see just what Jesus had to say as to why the<b> Greek Orthodox service is a waste of both time and money:</b><br /><br />Hear now the Parable of The Vineyard Workers: (Matt. 19: 1-16) <br />For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace, And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way. Again he went out about the sixth and ninth hour, and did likewise. And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others standing idle, and saith unto them, Why stand ye here all the day idle? 7They say unto him, Because no man hath hired us. He saith unto them, Go ye also into the vineyard; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive. <br />So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first. And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny. And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house, Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day. But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen. <br />Lvka, if my observations are incorrect, <b>just why do Orthodox have to work so much harder for their salvation???</b> Is it because of the ancient traditions? So what did Jesus say: "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the traditions of men." (Mark 7: 8)<br />This is one big reason the Greek Orthodox priest (Father Tom) bitterly asked and said: <b>“Are you a Greek Orthodox? I’ll tell you one thing, all you Protestants will stand before Jesus at the Judgment and explain to Him why you weren’t a Greek Orthodox before you are condemned to Hell!”</b><br /><br />And what about the Orthodox’s Holy Icons; just what was the religious reform under King Josiah about in 622 BCE (2 Kings 22 -23) and how did it deal with cult images (or ancient Semitic Holy Icons)? Hint, Hint!<br /><br />Now, thank God for the Cappadocian Fathers! (LOL)Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77578654810326348542010-07-12T09:05:12.638-04:002010-07-12T09:05:12.638-04:00Harry H. McCall, CET said..."What a joke you ...Harry H. McCall, CET said..."What a joke you Orthodox people are! You exist via mental confusion call theology."<br /><br />Harry McCall my friend,look there is no need for any mental confusion.<br /><br />deactivated .http://www.newscientist.com/article<br />/mg20627574.200-brain-shuts-off-in-response-to-healers-prayer.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=life<br /><br />Its no Joke.Its serrious stuff.These Orthodox people are no more confused, than people who are asleep at night are confused about matters also.Gandolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02624178234332819107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81643684175745876842010-07-12T05:28:17.415-04:002010-07-12T05:28:17.415-04:00LOL!
Harry, good seeing you again. (I believe we...LOL! <br /><br />Harry, good seeing you again. (I believe we had this conversation <a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3323/3293381586_2f5e5926b3_o.jpg" rel="nofollow">before</a>). :-)The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76681916855290288562010-07-11T18:34:45.596-04:002010-07-11T18:34:45.596-04:00Papalinton,
You said,
Great succinct posts of yo...Papalinton,<br />You said, <br /><b><br />Great succinct posts of yours. Do you mind if I borrowed your words to use on various other sites I am working [with appropriate attribution of course]?<br /> Thanks<br /> Papalinton<br /></b><br />By all means, if what I've said will help in some way, please feel free to use it.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14828165804379687622010-07-11T16:08:56.453-04:002010-07-11T16:08:56.453-04:00Lvka,
The Church Fathers, especially those in the...Lvka,<br /><br />The Church Fathers, especially those in the East (Orthodox Traditions) played nothing less than play a <i>Mental Shell Game</i> where confusion stays one step ahead of mental logic.<br /><br />Greenville’s own Greek Orthodox priest (known to his parishioners as “Father Tom”) and leader of <i>St. George’s Greek Orthodox Church</i> played this same Mental Shell Game on me when I called him to find out if dragons (as depicted in their Churches’ icons) had really existed and if a man (later sainted) named George really killed this snake headed, bat winged and snaked tailed flying dragon.<br /><br />He assured me (with the same Church Father’s logic and traditions as you use) that there were / are real dragons and a pious man named George killed one that had terrorized some medieval European town. <br /><br />When I pressed this priest further, he claimed what George had really killed was Satan. When I asked him if Satan was now dead, he angrily asserted: <b>NO!</b> Then he went back to the real dragon Mental Shell Game. <br /> <br />According to this Orthodox Priest (Father Tom), only the Greek Orthodox are allowed in Heaven (<b>he flat out told this</b>)! So, heresy trumps atheism in your religious tradition.<br /><br />What a joke you Orthodox people are! You exist via mental confusion call theology.<br /><br /><b>So what about you, <i>Orthodox Lvka</i>; did St. George kill a real flying dragon? Or is the Greek Orthodox tradition (like its flying dragon story (and Trinity)) just a great pious Orthodox Mental Shell Game?</b>Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11729452595806101182010-07-11T15:11:44.677-04:002010-07-11T15:11:44.677-04:00Since the meaning behind the two statements, as we...Since the meaning behind the two statements, as well as their implications, differ radically, we're obviously NOT saying the same thing, not even by a long-shot.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21920949501236289202010-07-11T14:48:39.840-04:002010-07-11T14:48:39.840-04:00"Since God by definition has not had a beginn...<i>"Since God by definition has not had a beginning, and space and time do not enter His existence, the three persons of the Trinity do not share a pre-existing or logically prior to them divine nature, but coincide with it. [...]"</i><br /><br />So, what's wrong with John's statement? Whether one says that god did not have a prior moment to choose his own nature or that god's nature simply 'coincides' with his existence/being/what-have-you... aren't we saying the same thing?<br /><br />The key, also, is to note the words, <i>"Since God by definition..."</i> This says nothing about what is <i>actually</i> the case but that we have defined a concept such that it fulfills certain conditions we find very convenient on questions still unknown to science.jwhendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03615608336736450543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27206147709459164522010-07-11T14:04:01.678-04:002010-07-11T14:04:01.678-04:00The Judeo-Christian religious tradition has always...The Judeo-Christian religious tradition has always depended on other older and established (proven) religious and philosophical traditions to build their mental environments. Then these two (father and son) religions traditions could cherry pick and pervert both ancient Semitic and Greek thought in order to claim <i>total truth</i> for themselves as they then condemned their sources as evil and even demonic.<br /><br />Facts prove that Christianity was as much a parasite on the Greek and Jewish intellectual traditions as the Hebrew / Jewish world was a product of their ancient Semitic world. <br /><br />So be it the Jew Philo and the Hellenistic world or main stream Christianity’s Church Fathers and the Greco-Roman intellectual worlds; <b>Christianity is simply a true parasite of history!</b>Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80798372023712554702010-07-11T12:43:26.542-04:002010-07-11T12:43:26.542-04:00Hendy,
in the words of the article itself:
In ...Hendy, <br /><br />in the words of the article itself:<br /><br /><br /><i>In human existence, nature precedes the person. When John or George or Basil are born, the one human nature precedes them [...]<br /><br />Now, if we contrast this with God's existence, we see immediately that this existential and hence logical difficulty is not applicable to God. Since God by definition has not had a beginning, and space and time do not enter His existence, the three persons of the Trinity do not share a pre-existing or logically prior to them divine nature, but coincide with it. [...]<br /><br />It is impossible, therefore, to say that in God, as it is the case with human beings, nature precedes the person. [...]</i>The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75446850297715850442010-07-11T09:03:02.459-04:002010-07-11T09:03:02.459-04:00@Lvka:
Is this the most relevant passage?
"C...@Lvka:<br /><br />Is this the most relevant passage?<br /><i>"Cappadocian theology stressed this principle of freedom as a presupposition of being by extending it to cover the being of God Himself. [...] <b>By so doing, they gave to the person ontological priority, and thus freed existence from the logical necessity of substance, of the self-existent.</b> This was a revolutionary step in philosophy, the anthropological consequences of which must not pass unnoticed."</i><br /><br />Honestly, I feel like I need a translator for all that. Since you suggested it, would you be able to synthesize it into layman's terms for me/us?<br /><br />In the end, I think the burden of proof is on someone to give an even remotely plausible account of <i>why</i> we should suspect that typical laws of causality or timeline are not applicable to god.<br /><br />It also seems that in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, it is beneficial to carry the concepts of time-based cause and effect into a realm where such do not apply... yet here we are doing the same with what we know of existence and the implications of god being 'eternal' and are told... <i>"Hey! Don't do that!"</i><br /><br />It seems like a double standard to me. If god is not created and is eternal and is changeless... how is #1 invalidated?jwhendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03615608336736450543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35181394367151086282010-07-11T06:17:05.687-04:002010-07-11T06:17:05.687-04:00Lee,
John was complaining that God "never ...Lee, <br /><br /><br />John was complaining that God "never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature". -- In other words, he was implying that God is the subject or slve or prisoner of Necessity (in this case, of His own divine nature): that's what I was responding to; that's what you should search for when reading the article: stuff like this:<br /><br /><br /><i>With regard to human existence, too, classical Greek philosophy at that time had given priority to nature over particular persons. The views current at the time of the Cappadocian Fathers were either of a Platonic or of an Aristotelian kind. [...] In both cases, man in his diversity and plurality of persons was subject to the necessity — or priority — of his nature. Nature or substance always preceded the person in classical Greek thought.<br /><br />The Cappadocian Fathers challenged this established view of philosophy through their Trinitarian theology. They claimed that the priority of nature over the person, or of the one over the many, is due to the fact that human existence is a created existence, i.e. it is an existence with a beginning, and should not be made into a metaphysical principle. [...]<br /><br />To give ontological primacy to the person would mean to undo the fundamental principles with which Greek philosophy had operated since its inception. The particular person never had an ontological role in classical Greek thought. What mattered ultimately was the unity or totality of being of which man was but a portion. [...]<br /><br />The Trinitarian theology of the Cappadocian Fathers involved a philosophy in which the particular was not secondary to being or nature; it was thus free in an absolute sense. In classical thought, freedom was cherished as a quality of the individual, but not in an ontological sense. [...] Furthermore, the possibility that the person might pose the question of his freedom <b>from his very existence</b> was entirely inconceivable in ancient philosophy. [...]<br /><br />Cappadocian theology stressed this principle of freedom as a presupposition of being by extending it to cover the being of God Himself. [...] By so doing, they gave to the person ontological priority, and thus freed existence from the logical necessity of substance, of the self-existent. This was a revolutionary step in philosophy, the anthropological consequences of which must not pass unnoticed.<br /><br />Man, for the Fathers, is the image of God. He is not God by nature, since he is created. [...] Nevertheless, he is called to exist in the way God exists. <br /><br />It follows from this that although man's nature is ontologically prior to his personhood, as we have already noted, man is called to an effort to free himself from the necessity of his nature and behave in all respects as if the person were free from the laws of nature. In practical terms, this is what the Fathers saw in the ascetic effort which they regarded as essential to all human existence, regardless of whether one was a monk or lived in the world. Without an attempt to free the person from the necessity of nature, one cannot be the image of God, since in God, as we have noted above, the person, and not nature, causes Him to be the way He is.<br /><br />As it emerges from the way personhood is understood by the Cappadocian Fathers with reference to God, the person is not a secondary but a primary and absolute notion in existence. Nothing is more sacred than the person since it constitutes the way of being of God Himself. The person cannot be sacrificed or subjected to any ideal, to any moral or natural order, or to any expediency or objective, even of the most sacred kind. [...]<br /><br />The person cannot exist in isolation. God is not alone; He is communion. Love is not a feeling, a sentiment springing from nature like a flower from a tree. Love is a relationship, it is the free coming out of one's self, the breaking of one's will, a free submission to the will of another. [...]<br /><br />The Cappadocians have taught us that the Trinity is not a matter for academic speculation, but for personal relationship. </i><br /><br />etc. etc. etc.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51623469415962197192010-07-11T03:40:28.660-04:002010-07-11T03:40:28.660-04:00This list really should make Christians stop and r...This list really should make Christians stop and reflect on their beliefs in a more critical way. I'm a Christian myself, but some of these ideas have been causing me to rethink my belief system. #28 is what started it, my visceral reaction against the idea of hell. We are reviewing Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God" at church, and when we came to the chapter on Hell, I had such strong objections that I decided to review the chapter at my blog. The issue I faced in church is that when one starts with the presupposition that God loves us and died for us, everything else has to be understood in light of it. To question the doctrine of hell is to question the love of God, which doesn't go over well in church. I know the doctrine of hell is being dispensed with by some denominations. I'm trying to determine if by throwing out the doctrine of hell I am left with a coherent Christian belief system or if it all crumbles.DoOrDoNothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15775977854913362396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2071815771889976152010-07-10T23:19:46.064-04:002010-07-10T23:19:46.064-04:001) There must be a God who [...] never had a prior...1) There must be a God who [...] never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.<br /><br />Lvka, you responded thus:<br /><br />Yeah, about that...<br /><br />How does the link you supplied answer anything about John's 1st thesis? It's significant to me that there's not a single biblical reference in it. <br /><br />The author goes to great length to try to explain why the trinity makes sense, but then ends the paper with this:<br /><br />"The Cappadocians have taught us that the Trinity is not a matter for academic speculation, but for personal relationship. As such, it is truth revealed only by participation in the Father-Son relationship through the Spirit which allows us to cry Abba, Father. The Trinity is, therefore, revealed only in the Church, i.e. the community through which we become sons of the Father of Jesus Christ. Outside this it remains a stumbling block and a scandal."<br /><br />Are you fucking kidding me?! The whole paper up to that point is nothing but an attempt at academic speculation!!<br /><br />What he's asserting in that last paragraph is that the "truth" of the trinity can only be revealed to someone after they've already decided that christianity is true. How convenient. Then why didn't he just say that to begin with? Why does he bother to try to explain it, and then say in essence, it will only make sense to you once you've decided that it's true despite the fact that it doesn't make sense to you.<br /><br />So, how is it to be taken? By reason or by faith? Must faith really precede reason? If so, is that how we should approach all claims to truth? Does the concept of the trinity really, honestly make any more sense after a person accepts it on faith?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68140961884916695712010-07-10T21:26:01.750-04:002010-07-10T21:26:01.750-04:00Hi Russ
Great succinct posts of yours. Do you mi...Hi Russ<br /><br />Great succinct posts of yours. Do you mind if I borrowed your words to use on various other sites I am working [with appropriate attribution of course]?<br />Thanks<br />PapalintonPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-72751633614075052152010-07-10T17:43:34.273-04:002010-07-10T17:43:34.273-04:00Concerning statement 14:
As to the Virgin Birth...<b>Concerning statement 14:</b> <br /> <br />As to the Virgin Birth for a commoner like Mary, I would cite the very ancient, but astute Akkadain proverb: <i>ina la na-kimi-i e-rat-me in la a-ka-li-me ka-ab-rat</i> (They say: ‘Could she be pregnant without sexual intercourse; could she be fat without eating?’) G.W. Lambert, <i>Babylonian Wisdom Literature</i>, Oxford University Press, 1960; p. 241 ii 40-42. <br /><br /><b>Concerning statement 15:</b> <br /><br />In the ancient Semitic world, it was believed that only the father (in this case God himslef) was only condisted to be the genetic parent. <br /><br />If we consider the Akkaidain word <i>rihutu</i> (seed (male semen)) to be a synonym for the Hebrew זרע (also meaning male seed), then one can understand how the Semitic background for Jesus being 100% God could probably have been conceived, but not 100%man which is use for the atonement. <br /><br />Thus from a Babylonian text we read: <i>a-bi ir-ha-an-ni AMA ul-dan-ni</i> (<b>My father engendered me, (my) mother gave me birth.</b>)<br /><br />I would consider the Akkadian background of the Hebrew Bible, more in line with the birth narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke than with the concepts of the Classical Greek medical texts of Galen. <br /><br />However, the final analysis of whether the birth narrative additions are based in the Semitic world or in the Greek world depends on just when these birth additions were added.Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26645330022777478852010-07-10T12:21:21.802-04:002010-07-10T12:21:21.802-04:00Russ-
One thing to further point out regarding al...Russ-<br /><br />One thing to further point out regarding all monotheistic ideologies (and Christianity *is* an ideology, not a "religion" in my estimation) is the distinguishing foundation upon which they base *themselves*: the false dilemma between true and false "religion." <br /><br />If such a dilemma is the case for monotheism, and Christians consider themselves monotheistic, then it follows that 1) "Christianity" is really an ambiguous or maybe even a meaningless, umbrella term, 2) not all Christians are Christian, and/or 3) that "Christianity" is really a relativistic belief system. (I've thought 1 and 3 to be pretty much the case for some time, given the almost inherent two-faced-ness, incoherency, inconsistency, and opportunism as Christians show themselves.)Rufous H. Byrdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00762164989806318495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73296696320187977912010-07-10T11:34:18.944-04:002010-07-10T11:34:18.944-04:00@AgnBri... (AgnBri = FabricOnline??)
I would like...@AgnBri... (AgnBri = FabricOnline??)<br /><br />I would like to hone in on the topic of choice. Conduct a thought experiment with me for a moment:<br /><br />Can you imagine that it is possible for you to <i>choose</i> right now to be a Muslim? Your answer should be yes. It is <i>possible</i>. Yet imagine yourself actually doing it. What would your choice to <i>believe</i> even mean? Surely you can sense the tension of supposedly having chosen, yet in your present state I'm imagining that you can't even get your head around how you would actually convince yourself of its truth by this choice.<br /><br />Does that resonate with you at all?<br /><br />I realize that these things are somewhat elusive with respect to 'proof' and 'verification', yet the evidence is as it is and our mental capacities, genetically propelled tendencies, and experience form how that evidence is received.<br /><br />We all have what I call a 'threshold of belief' and I heavily urge you consider how much choice is truly involved in that.<br /><br />My prayer these days is, 'god, give me something I can't deny.' That's all it would take.jwhendyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03615608336736450543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62274903415978583052010-07-10T09:17:27.810-04:002010-07-10T09:17:27.810-04:00FabricOnline,
You said,
The thing is that either ...FabricOnline,<br />You said,<br /><b><br />The thing is that either christianity is right or it isn't.<br /></b><br />Actually, things are not as simple as you seem to think. If we assume that we have, through some as yet undisclosed method, determined that all non-Christianities are wrong and further, through that same undisclosed method, determined that one of the Christianities must be "right," we are still faced with the operational impossibility of ferreting out which of the thousands of today's Christianities is that "right" one. From the World Christian Encyclopedia and other sources we know that there are about forty thousand theologically distinct Christianties in the world right now. To make matters worse, those forty thousand only cover the formal ones, the ones that some dutiful theologian has put on paper, so they do not account for the additional tens of thousands less formal Christianities.<br /><br />As a child one learns the "right" version of Christianity from those around him, but if one starts from the outside with the intention of isolating the objectively "right" Christianity, then he would quickly realize that his goal is unacheivable out of sheer numbers, and there are about three new Christianities added to the pile every day.<br /><br />Finding the "right" Christianity is also impeded by the contradictory and exclusive claims made among the Christianities. It's not enough to be "Christian," a term that is meaningless really, one must be a specific kind of Christian. If one is not Roman Catholic, one is doomed to hell. Just ask the Pope, after all he really knows these things, right? If one isn't COGIC, one is bound to Hades. Just ask the COGIC clergy who comment here regularly. All Christians are going to hell by the theologies of other Christians.<br /><br />So, again, things are not as simple as you seem to think. When you say, "The thing is that either christianity is right or it isn't," you show us that you have not given the tens of thousands of Christianities a full consideration.Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15316459700934662467noreply@blogger.com