~ Beliefs Based On ... ? ~

Post Reply New Topic

How about something lighter this time around?



Luke 3:38

Tou enOs tou sEth tou adam tou theou

For starters, there is no definite article indicating Adam has a unique relationship with God. Tou indicates "preceding from" and as such it is not the same as huie, the word for "child, foal, or son".

Genesis 6:2

u-irau bni -e-aleim ath-bnuth e-adm ki tbth ene u-iqchu l-em nshim m-kl ashr bchru

Ben bane or bni, translated as "sons", is in a plural form here, and there is no definite article. As such they are not denoted as having a unique relationship with God, which has been demonstrated thus far in the case of Christ. He is the Son of God who "sits at the right hand of power". No one else is seen "sitting at the right hand".

Exodus 4:22

U-amrth al -phroe ke amr ieue bn-i bkr-i ishral

Bni bkri ishral here is translated "Israel my son, even my firstborn". I hardly need to dig further into the linguistics and mention grammar or original definitions, because the "Israel" mentioned here isn't even a person. It's a nation. Jacob, later known as Israel, had been dead for hundreds of years before Moses was born.

Job 1:6

u-iei e-ium u-ibau bni e-aleim l-ethitzb ol-ieue u-ibua gm - e-shtn b-thuk-m

Here we have yet another instance like Genesis 6:2, where the grammatical form is plural. One interesting word to note here is e-shtn or ha-saitan, which in Hebrew means "the adversary". We know this word as "Satan".

Matthew 5:9

makarioi hoi eirEnopoioi hoti autoi huioi theou klEthEsontai

Huioi theou, or "sons of God", the more perceptive reader might have noticed as different from huie, the singular form. There is no definite article between the two indicating some concrete relationship we must understand, just a generic plural form and God's Greek name theou.

Luke 20:36

oute gar apothanein eti dunantai isaggeloi gar eisin kai huioi eisin tou theou tEs anastaseOs huioi ontes

Here we can see Luke's beautiful use of Koine Greek, with more complete grammatical formations and extensive vocabulary. It truly is a pleasure to read Greek this explicit and expressive, the only NT authors who used Greek this well being Luke (impeccable grammar), Paul (excellent vocabulary), and John (astonishing command of both).

But let's move on to the verse itself. Huioi eisin tou theou employs eisen to express that not only are these huioi plural "sons", but this word has the grammatical function of a third person present indicative meaning "they". Only Jesus is first person singular with God. Next we see tou, a definite article indicating that this is THE God the author is talking about. Luke often uses this definite article to set apart God from pagan deities, as can be seen later on in the book of Acts (Luke-Acts are two volumes of the same book).

Romans 8:14, 19

Hosoi gar pneumati theou agontai houtoi eisin huioi theou

Another plural form with the third person present indicative.

HE gar apokaradokia tEs ktiseOs tEn apokalupsin tOn huiOn tou theou apekdechetai

HuiOn tou theou, another emphasis similar to Luke that this is The God. Also we see a variation of huioi that is still in plural form but is serving a different function in the overall sentence, as it is preceded by a definite article connecting it to apokalupsin, meaning "disclosure".

Galatians 3:26

Pantes gar huioi theou este dia tEs pisteOs en christO iEsou

Another plural form without any definite articles to assign.

Luke 22:70

Eipon de pantes su oun ei ho huios tou theou ho de pros autous ephE humeis legeti hoti egO eimi

Ho huios theou, is a definite article and then a singular form of "son" before theou/God. How did they respond to this statement? "And they said, What need have we of further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth?" It would hardly be reasonable to say that they convicted Him of blasphemy for saying this, when we think of it in your sense.

I'd get around to the rest of these quotes, but I think I've made my point about as well as I can when it comes to this particular phrase, "Son of God".



I'd like to see the scholars you're thinking of, because the Hebrew people already had a word for servant: ebed. Sons are "generated from", servants are "in bondage to, under a covenant with".



Then demonstrate them, if you will. I would be happy to discuss them with you. Thanks again for the pleasant discussion.

Well, seriously; I don't need any books.

In fact, I 'talk' directly to GOD when I am three
looking across a river; before I can speak;
as no; I don't have the 'normal' Asperger's;
I have the Gillberg Criteria Asperger's that
can include a language delay until age 4
like me. And interestingly, the Gillberg
criteria better reflects the case-studies
of Hans Aspergers, back last century.

And just for a quick reference
offering up someone's virgin
daughters as rape victims
instead of having someone
'soil' a man human is
evidence enough that the
Old Testament is a dirty book.

The New Testament is Okay;
and if you wanna take it
as the truth; heaven is now;
and there should be no
marriage now; if Jesus
has his way, then;
that's okay with me;
I am naturally monogamous
with my wife; and can handle
that without having any license;
smiles; There are no special humans
anointed by GOD as any greater than
any other human; Jesus reflects himself
as a humble servant and clearly states others
will come after him who will do much greater stuff;
and if He wasn't sure if GOD had forsaken him on the
cross; it dam sure cannot be possible for Constantine
and his Catholic Cohorts to elevate him to the soldier GOD
of the Universe; the Universe is a plot of Land back then;
now we have stuff like 'multi-verses'; and Jesus if he comes
back now, will be steaming mad that someone elevates him
to a position that is well beyond any human's pay grade;
or perhaps he will just laugh at humans for literally
being so ignorant; considering HOW MUCH further
we come now to view more of what reality is and is
not; problem with taking a book of poetry
as science, like the bible; is it fallible
and created by poets who are in
a creative state of mind; where
truly anything goes; and some
stuff makes sense and some stuff
is literally cr8p; like the raping virgin
daughters stuff in the OLD testament;
but like Thomas Jefferson; if one separates
the gold from the garbage the New Testament
is as worthy a document for wisdom, as the TAO
and other books of old that speak the same
Universal Truths; and seriously, when I am
three and GOD 'speaks' to me; GOD just tells
me GOD is here forever and forever is
now; then and now; and for all practical
purposes; i am here forever now; as well;
and as far as I know, other folks are too;
if they can get past the illusion of the
FUTURE AND THE PAST; humans and
books are not required for GOD to
exist; the most basic common sense
of any human should be to understand
that GOD exists on the 'beach', with or
without humans; there is no evil on the
beach, only merit for survival; and the
rest of nature; all the other stuff is
just BS created by human imagination
and creativity; capable of great dreams
as well as great nightmares; evil is a human
creation; GOD is real all the time; in pain
and pleasure; GOD is reflected in us; and whenever
we hurt someone else or hurt ourselves or do not live
life to its fullest as gifted by GOD innately instinctually
and intuitively as the TRUTH WITHIN; then GOD gets
PISSED OFF AT US; MORE OR LESS, as metaphor; and
we pay the piper the piper's dues; and that piper is
GOD too; I've been to hell already friend; and I live
in heaven now; the place that the man Jesus promises
is real; and for those who get through that needle;
they live in paradise always now; same as my cat
when he rolls in the sand of the midday sun;
or hugs the grass on a warm moonlit night;
Just living life as
'GOOD'; smiles;
it's too bad humans
developed written language;
non-verbal language does not lie;
but my form of Autism has no problem
with human empathy or non-verbal language;
just problems with verbal language that truly
gives me that direct conduit with GOD from
the age of three; that for most folks with
verbal language is drowned out by
the illusions of culture, as is;
GOD speaks to me loud and
clear, as I have no more
lies of culture or religion
to drown GOD
OUT; IT'S A GREAT
PLACE TO BE FRIEND;
AND TRULY I CAN ONLY
HOPE THAT OTHERS GAIN
THAT GIFT THAT THE REAL
JESUS IS SPEAKING
TO THEN..

continued, per edit issue:

I could be wrong; but I have
100% trust in GOD; so
I seriously doubt that;
however, like Jesus; I
am not so big that I cannot
accept that someone else may
have a new truth that I am not be
aware of; some of my greatest lessons
in life are from folks with IQ's around
70 or so; and some of the darkest
issues of life are with folks with
astounding IQ's who relatively
speaking are impoverished
in human heart, spirit
and soul; but that
is the price of
book learning;
separation from
empathy and GOD;
as even science now
partiAlly shows is correct;
per the empathy thing; but
it's all connected; there is no
separation but in the minds of
humans as illusion; or in some cases
apparently for innate reasons; but no
one proves GOD is fair in just one life;
and before anyone thinks they can escape
GOD and just cavalierly treat folks like dirt
all their life; just imagine being born a cricket
and being stepped on a million times in a million
new lives in infinity as present; anything is possible
with GOD; and i know Karma is real; at least in one
lifetime as we reap what we sow; beyond that
I'm not taking any chances of being that
cricket; as I don't mess with GOD;
I respect all of creation, including
me and nature with the
same unconditional tough
passionate love as with
a grain of sand;
me, my wife;
and literally
hundreds of female
dancing friends; i will
hang out with prostitutes
too; but hey; my wife draws
the line somewhere and hundreds
of female dance friends is reasonable
freedom and relative free will to allow
GOD who lives within me; to experience
this divine life
with me;
I take GOD to places
that GOD may have never
been before; and that is what
Jesus is speaking about when he says
folks will do stuff greater than
he; for the Love of GOD to
show GOD what GOD creates
is 'Good' and
worthy
for amazing
existence;
and with that
said here is another song;
but what one must understand
is it's not about a man; it's a woman
showing God A good time; through
her eyes of GOD; and that
my friend
is
REAL LOVE,
LIGHT
AND
TRUTH;
TO SHOW
GOD A GOOD
TIME WITH SMILES,
LAUGHS, JOY
AND THE
DIVINITY
OF NOW
IN COUNTING
BLESSINGS AS
IS; and yes
i appreciate the reasoned
and civil human conversation
as well; that's always a breath
of fresh air here to talk to
someone who can feel
and express feelings
for other folks
in reciprocal
social communication;
I think I'm the only person
here who has randomly just
told a person they are liked;
at least in this forum;
and truly a human
issue here exists
that needs
some kind
of remediation;
and overall; that is
an online thing;
as online allows
the devil to
come out in
those who truly
have this metaphor
human archetype
of life in cold
hearts, souls,
and little to
no expressed
human spirit
in connection
with other
human beings
and or the rest of nature
AKA GOD, as NOT SO WELL
AT ALL, SADLY ENOUGH.

THIS IS LONG BUT I ALREADY
DANCED CLOSE TO 3900 MILES FOR
GOD EVERYWHERE I GO; showing GOD
that lives within me that good time;
in just the last 22 months; oh,
passionately loving GOD
in tough unconditional
LOVE; is JUST THE BEST;
PERIOD; WITH SMILES..

It totally slipped my mind to ask this. Can I base my beliefs on bass?

Why put yourself through all that treble?

Of course.

First there is dark;
then light;
then movement
or dance; then
sound or
music and
then song
with lyrics
of human
verbal poetry eventually;
with sound inspiring
the cycle of movement
in infinity forevernow;
in bass as well as treble;
along with the infinite
emotions in sound
and music of song
with poetry of lyrics
as well
as
human movement
that is inspired
by sound OR
MUSIC that
is equal to
emotions
and that movement
unto itself; as whole
that is GOD and human
as reflections of both
in infinity now;
with all other
animate
and inanimate
existence
NOW..



And no; you are not the first BASS leaning person who doesn't
wanna go to any TREBLE OF BELIEVING in higher sounding
stuff; in reference to Fnord's comment and not yours;
haha!..

But yeah; BASS can be
very deep
STUFF..

Thanks and smiles; I just offer words and not DIRECTion..

But in regard to John Lennon and the reported Jesus;

Of course not; just like Jesus; he is inspired by GOD; and then
doubts his faith like Jesus is reported to do on the cross;

the story stays the same;
and so do Universal Truths.

words as metaphors change;
but the essence remains.

Learn to look deeper
than words as tool;
and TRUTH and LIGHT
remains.

And to be clear;
words here,
are a metaphor
for the systemizing
mind as opposed
to a soUl expressing
spiRit in heArt of human
ONE with ALL Natural Force of GOD..

That was a note worthy comment...

Hi m8...

I was actually referring to:
""I have to say that, from my point of view, I felt he was a hypocrite. Dad could talk about peace and love out loud to the world but he could never show it to the people who supposedly meant the most to him: his wife and son. How can you talk about peace and love and have a family in bits and pieces - no communication, adultery, divorce? You can't do it, not if you're being true and honest with yourself." "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/4713 ... d-son.html

And this:
"There’s simply no way of disputing this: the revered icon of peace and love had a serious problem with violence against women. This has been documented all the way back to his Liverpool days, and he eventually admitted it himself later in life. His first wife Cynthia and his second, Yoko Ono, were both victims of Lennon’s brutality at one point or another, and given that most men who beat their spouses or girlfriends regularly are not particularly discriminating about the object of their violence, it’s frankly impossible that they were the only ones. It seems clear in hindsight that the gentle icon the hippies worship was actually a man with very serious psychological problems who often flew into uncontrollable fits of rage which he took out on the women in his life."

And this:
"People tend to see Lennon as some sort of divine guru of peace and love because of his political activities in the early 1970s. The truth is that most of Lennon’s reputation as a political activist is based on photos of him with various ‘60s radicals and his own press statements. He never actually did anything whatsoever of note in the political realm, and most of the radicals he cultivated thought he was an ignorant poseur. The few things he did actually do, like giving money and publicity to violent groups like the Black Panthers, are nothing to be proud of."

And this:
"His relentless antics with Yoko Ono in the early ‘70s now seem to be such a blatant plea for attention that one wonders how anyone took them seriously back then. And of course, he never turned down any of the fat paychecks that came his way as a result of his fame and success."

But this was my main point:
"Lennon was a perfect example of someone who lived by the hypocritical dictum of “do as I say, not as I do.” As his critics sometimes point out, all you have to do is go straight to his songs. The man who sang “imagine no possessions” lived a millionaire’s life in a posh New York hotel. The man who sang “imagine no religion” was obsessed with every spiritual and New Age fad that came his way, including Hindu meditation, the I-Ching, and astrology of all kinds. The man who sang “all you need is love” was a bitter, violent, and angry man who abused his family and friends. The man who praised having “nothing to kill or die for” helped finance and publicize radical groups who extolled the use of violence. Quite literally everything his fans see personified in the icon of John Lennon are ideals the man himself either couldn’t or wouldn’t live up to."

http://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10- ... hn-lennon/

Large mouth? Or sea bass?

Either way you're denying cod!

I usually measure that kind of thing by blackened or broiled. I'm species-blind in that regard so long as it hasn't been basking in the glow of Fukushima. Through that lens in most cases you're looking at a pinot noir, preferably sulfite-free.

Be at peace...
I would not have found the suggestion that I don't have a soul offensive...
To the contrary, I see my disbelief in the concept (of a soul) as a badge of honour...
...a rite of passage...
...a transcendental epiphany...

I am comfortable with the belief that had you directed that comment towards me, it would have been done without malice...

Pax...

Yes, you are correct; I'm not about the malice thingy; and truly my concept of heart, spirit and soul is all natural.

I consider the heart as the feeling of empathy/emotions and senses. I consider the spirit the expression of human empathy/emotions and senses. And I consider the soul as a mind and body balanced human, fully feeling and expressing empathy/emotions and senses.

And truly there are not terms like cognitive and affective empathy in the days of the bible; so they do the best they can to develop metaphors for the human experience in balance, connection, and happiness.

Material items are tools for survival; and truly it is possible to make those tools, including words, reality, instead of the essence of human connection to each other and the rest of nature as All That IS, as metaphor for the all natural GOD as Nature.

When I suggest someone does not have a soul, heart, or spirit expressed, it is not a moral judgement; in fact, it is an empirical assessment in their ability to feel empathy/emotions and senses, in balance; as well as expressing empathy/emotions and senses in balance.

There is no woo to this; it is human nature as gifted by Mother Nature as another synonym for ALL THAT IS as GOD.

Problem with human disagreement between militant Atheists and fundamentalist Christians, alike, are semantic differences in the language of Science/Nature vs. the language of Religion/Culture; but the real essence of balance or strife is in all natural imbalance, in regulating emotions and integrating senses for a human soul in mind and body balance.

You are able to communicate on this site and stay light-hearted enough to express your feelings and not attack others in peace; that makes you as holy as my Catholic priest. The words are just idols to me; it is the human feelings and senses that are felt and expressed in balance that is a soul to me.

It's so dam simple; but culture and religion, along with the ever present nature of the human instinct for tribalism is what makes the world such a hateful place to live in with someone's special quarterback of their team as Jesus or Muhammad or Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking if one happens to be Sheldon Cooper, for pop-culture metaphor.

IN general, the reason humans cannot get along is they cannot come to a tribal agreement on the meanings of words as that applies to the human experience. AS an outcast in youth, I develop my own natural beliefs by looking within and at nature; as above so below, inside, outside of me and all around me.

My life is balanced and simple; but sadly enough the simple can become convoluted to the extreme when it is as simple as reciprocal communication received and delivered as empathy/feelings and senses with and for humans and the rest of nature in balance.

It's taken me years to put what is so easy to feel and give into words; but my form of Autism is not an issue with non-verbal language; as discussed earlier on another thread here; it is an issue in the areas of output in both writing and verbal language.

So now, I have both parts of the human pie; and am simply enjoying life and attempting to provide a bridge of understanding as the bridge of my mind, body, emotions, and sensed are balanced in heart, spirit and soul..

Understanding is valuable. Not easy in a world of diversity; but well worth the price of providing understanding in as many ways as possible, as each human being has a unique language of a Universe unto themselves in feeling emotions and senses and expressing emotions and senses in mind and body balance.

Anyway, peace to you too; everything I speak here is about Universal Human Nature and Mother Nature; the metaphors change; but the Universal Truth stays the same for the majority of human beings; but yes, as in all spectrums of life. mileage varies for the outliers of life..

He presents a hair brained straw man of theist moral arguments, confusing epistemology and existentialism for each other with this statement: "Atheists can be happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled." Theist arguments on this subject tend to focus on epistemology first, yet he props up a straw man in the book by assuming that Christians primarily argue for their existential superiority.

Dawkins is playing at philosophy, and he clearly isn't a philosopher. In fact he has disparaged philosophers and the practice of philosophy on a number of occasions, clearly demonstrating that he is unaware of the fact that his field of study is merely a branch of philosophy, which birthed and legitimizes science in the first place.

Another quote: "Natural selection and similar scientific theories are superior to a "God hypothesis"—the illusion of intelligent design—in explaining the living world and the cosmos." He presents the false dilemma that intelligent design arguments don't include these theories, yet in a number of instances we find argumnets that these theories strengthen teleology.

My third quote: "Atheists should be proud, not apologetic, because atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind." He takes a step further, and demonstrates yet again, how sorely he misunderstands the ethical arguments that philosophers on either side of the aisle bounce past each other. Here he not only forwards an existential argument against an epistemological argument, but he takes the hair brained stance that atheism is evidence of superior reasoning.

Valid and rigorous reasoning, itself, is the only possible criteria for evaluating reasoning. Ptolemy was an incredibly reasonable person, who believed that the planets orbited around numerous ellipses, and as such they orbited neither the earth nor the sun. Ptolemaic astronomy, based on Aristotelian thinking, dominated astronomy until Haufner and Copernicus. There was an explosion of debate at the beginning of our Copernican system, and on either side there were actually pretty compelling arguments. Of course the Copernican model won, but not until we found better means to support such an idea; it must be remembered that Nicolaus Copernicus published De revolutionibus orbium coelestium before anyone had invented the telescope.

So where is Dawkins' "telescope"? Considering the way he bumbles through this subject, actually doing a disservice to other atheist thinkers, I don't imagine he would recognize the "telescope" of this issue if it had been invented.



I personally have a hard time distinguishing between hobbies and professions. What I am trying to illustrate here, though, is that there is the reality of the academic atmosphere and then there is this narrative given by popular (non-academic) publishers who present atheists on a high horse. So popular books like the God Delusion, which are never vetted in a peer review process, become New York Times bestsellers, and another group of people finds an excuse to quit exemplifying critical reasoning and just condescend to others.



Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Stephen Pinker, Daniel Dennet, and Michael Shermer are all part of a popular movement called the New Atheism movement. The majority of them are specialists who basically become superficially acquainted with the Great Debate, and from their armchairs they write books and send them to popular publishers. Consumers eat this up and apparently have no concern that these people are making a mockery of the truly exemplary names in the Great Debate, authors who actually submit their work to the peer review process and don't make careless assertions about subjects they aren't even familiar with.

People in the New Atheism movement routinely disparage other fields, especially philosophy, supplying their own philosophies as better the next second without submitting their philosophical ideas at all to the mountain of material there already is. So in the end, all they accomplish is discomfort for thinkers like Antony Flew who are unhappy to be associated with them.



You might be interested to learn that Galileo had support and funding from several influential cardinals. His controversy was with the Pope, not the Church. And between the Reformation and all of the schisms before, with the miasma of philosophy that the whole of Christendom actually represents, it should be clear that we're quite a mixed group of everyone from Galileo to Pious XII. Btw, Galileo was a Roman Catholic himself. Your "inconvenient truths" were what many Christians died for.

We weren't under the assumption that the Scientific Revolution was primarily an atheist movement, were we?

As of this post, of the people who responded to the poll, there are 2.75 times more people basing their beliefs on Science than on mere spirituality.

Science: 22
Spirituality: 8