Page 20 of 22 [ 344 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  Next

aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

12 May 2011, 10:24 pm

MCalavera wrote:
aspi-rant wrote:
91 wrote:
@ Aspie-Rant

I am not as familiar with the mythology claims of the Zeitgeist producers as I should be. Mainly due to the fact that when someone is in disagreement with both the Jesus Seminar (though I did once watch one make such claims...) and Orthodox Christian Theologians.

What I find striking about the whole thing is how utterly stuck it is in the past. Modern atheism is philosophically stuck enough as it is... but at least they broke down in the 50s... the mythology group is stuck in the late nineteenth century.

If you want something less explicit, then this video will be more to your liking.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=6813

As to some of your claims:

Quote:
the sun does "die" for three days and "resurrects" on december 25th?


This seems to be about Horus

1. Horus was not a sun God... that was Ra... Horus was God of the Sky
2. Isis was not a virgin
3. Son and Sun... is a bad pun in English... but it isn't anything in Egyptian or Hebrew except the wildest equivocation fallacy.
4. December is a LATIN month. The Egyptian sources do not mention December 25th... The entire story is set not in 'time' by any calander.. rather it is the Egyptian equivalent of the 'dream time' or mythological time.
5. Horus was NOT crucified... he was not killed at all... Osiris was killed... Osiris was killed by his brother Set who cut him up into tiny bits and scattered them all over Egypt.... He did not resurrect... he became a mummy and continued to exist in the nether world.


ad 1.
... and the god of war.. and the lord and owner of upper and lower egypt.. and the god of protection... and the god of the king... and the god of vengeance... and the god of the sky who had the sun as his right eye (horus eye in the sky!) and the moon as his left eye and that they traveled across the sky as he flew along.

ad 2.
horus' mother isis was the goddess of fertility and motherhood... and horus' father osiris the lord of the dead was dead himself and had to become alive (resurrect) to even become a father in the first place.... and that's were the virgin birth myth possibly originates from

ad 3.
i agree! extreme bad pun! but as i warned... it is for entertainment only.... so watch and think. there are tons of mistakes and odd things going on in zeitgeist... but that is besides my point: i try to demonstrate that there are multiple links to other religions and cultures loooong before the story of the christians came to life.

ad 4.
all around the world in any culture or religion... winter solstice + 3 days ... is the equivalent to dec. 25th according to the julian calender...
e.g. yule was a viking winter soltice party lasting many days and nights.. øh... twelve.... and even odin was used as prototype for father x-mas... and sleipnir prototypes for the reindeers... and even tomter or nisser(icelandic: yule lads) became inspiration for santa's helpers!!

ad 5.
horus was crucified alright... but NOT in the way people think of crucifixion as mentioned in the bible... so he was indeed not killed by cruxifiction... he was affixed to the cross of the vernal equinox, between two thieves... hence the "resurrection" in the sky...


please do not take zeitgeist literally. it has many many mistakes, but use it as an overall idea of how religious myths wander across era's and cultures... the are folklore tales. no more. no less.

if you would state something "wrong" with horus... you should have said:

horus didn't exist. he is just like all the others mentioned... a myth.


No reliable source whatsoever.

Typical of conspiracy theorists.



8O


whatever.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

12 May 2011, 10:27 pm

BurntOutMom wrote:
Ok.. I was going to leave this alone... but, I just can't. How can Jesus be called human if he was in fact a demigod?

If he in fact was/is a "demigod" or whatever, I would personally have to stop calling him human ... and yes, I meant to say what you just heard. As best I can tell, and in spite of all the many extrapolations of Scripture being spread around over these past 2000-or-so years, I see no conflict with the thought of "the son of the living Elohim" being just as mortal as you and me.

BurntOutMom wrote:
... if you go with the idea that he was [not fully human]... his being perfect and sinless are meaningless because he was already Divine.

????

I have never before ever heard anyone present that in such pure and simple logic, and you just caused me to have a great belly laugh!

You got it: Too many bats in too many belfries getting caught between far too many rafters.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Last edited by leejosepho on 12 May 2011, 10:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

12 May 2011, 10:28 pm

aspi-rant wrote:
8O


whatever.


Don't whatever me. Why not do some research and see for yourself if those claims are really supported by the mythologies themselves?

Why do you think most scholars don't believe this nonsense that many lay seculars believe?

You ain't a Christian; you have nothing to lose. Do the proper research needed.



BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

12 May 2011, 10:47 pm

leejosepho wrote:
BurntOutMom wrote:
Ok.. I was going to leave this alone... but, I just can't. How can Jesus be called human if he was in fact a demigod?

If he in fact was/is a "demigod" or whatever, I would personally have to stop calling him human ... and yes, I meant to say what you just heard. As best I can tell, and in spite of all the many extrapolations of Scripture being spread around over these past 2000-or-so years, I see no conflict with the thought of "the son of the living Elohim" being just as mortal as you and me.

These are the conflicts I see:
1) We're supposedly all God's children, but for some reason God had to be explicitly involved in the Christ's conception. Therefore, he would not be the same as you and I.
2) There is some half-assed concept that this had to be a miracle birth in order to give the Christ some sort of authority as the "Son of God" to "die for our sins", yet there is this defies the premise that he was he perfect human sacrifice.
3) If you assume that the royal "we"s and "us"s throughout the Bible refer to the Holy Trinity crap, then the Christ was "part" of God before his conception, before his death, and before his resurrection. Therefore, his "divinity" shouldn't be in question.

The Christ, whether Jesus or not, would not -in theory- be human.
(Where is Rho at a time like this to explain that the Bible's ideologies aren't contrdictory?!?!)



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

12 May 2011, 10:49 pm

kladky wrote:
The being we speak of as "God" is a spirit named Jehovah or Yahweh (since we are reading this in English; the Name has other Pronunciations). He created the universe many, many years ago. I cannot say how many, but it was definitely more than a few thousand. Before he did that, He created another spirit. He took this spirit to be His son and taught him everything He knew. Together, they constructed all other things that exist (Colossians 1:15, 16). I did not witness this, just as I did not witness the bombing of Pearl Harbor. But I believe that both happened. There is proof.

I am still pretty skeptical to the conjunction Christianity *is* true and the trinity within Christian theology is untrue. As I've stated, it seems to me that God would have had to do a poor job with the church to cause all of orthodoxy to go off of the rails.

Quote:
Think about the mathematical sequences found in nature. Symmetry (or near symmetry) is a common occurence. The Fibanacci sequence is found the petals of flowers. Outer space is infinite and full of glorious bodies, so that Astronaut John Glenn noted that there must be something that created it all. This comes from someone who has a perspective of the universe that you and I don't.

I am not sure that John Glenn believes X therefore I ought to really works. After all, there are lots of individuals with perspectives on the universe that you and I do not have, but who come to various conclusions. I mean, there are tons of people with great perspectives who militate various directions, however, I don't see this as powerful.

In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if patterns repeat themselves as a matter of informational economy in many places. As a pattern allows you to specify an order without specifying every exact detail. This is why patterns are studied in mathematics.

Quote:
While you're at it, think about our bodies. Let's forget the remarkable capacity for healing it has or the fact that the human brain is the most incredible machine known to humanity. Instead, let's focus on things we sometimes take for granted. Music. Art. Ice cream. Not one of these is necessary for human survival. We could all eat the same food alll the time with all the nutrients we need and be perfectly healthy. And yet, we have a variety of colors, textures, and tastes. And we have the capacity to create even more. Isn't the fact that we have such things inspiring to the thought on an intelligence behind it all?

Is it always remarkable though? I mean, if we didn't heal, we might very well die. However, the way the body heals isn't always that brilliant. For instance, one of the major issues with a coma is how the body is suffocating the brain during that coma. Even further, even though the brain is incredible, the fact that it is poorly designed in many ways is also notable. It is prone to self-deception. It is prone to failures of memory that never occur in our basic computers. It is prone to push us to make poor decisions even though this makes little sense, such as the struggle we all have not to eat that tub of ice-cream. If it were designed differently, the very notion of the struggle would likely be non-existent. And given that these issues are so deeply structural, we can't even appeal to the Edenic Fall as an explanation for these failings. Yet, the existence of these failings is good reason to question the existence of God, as God *never* had to accept any of them.

As it stands as well, I am not sure that aesthetics really seems a solid proof to me. Taste issues are very basic, as taste always favors the unhealthy(which used to be the healthy), we used to need lots of salt, lots of energy, etc, and so taste was a great guide to that, but.... taste is not adaptive like it could be, and taste is one of the big driving factors for y'know, obesity. For the others, I think it makes more sense to say that it's a result of the kluges of the mind, after all, there is little reason to say that a designer is the best explanation, as why not have tactile "art", or something else as equally common? I mean... tactile "art" is possible, it's easily maintained, and if God is all about aesthetics, then he could easily create a being just as motivated to that as the others, BUT... we don't see very much of this(aside from a few things like our love of fuzzy animals and a few out there artists) which.... kind of suggests God as a gap-filler in knowledge to me.

Quote:
The first things to be created were the spirit realm, including all the spirits within. These include the spirit which came to be known as the Devil as well as other angels (Job 38:4-7). Afterward, probably billions of years after it all started, He began forming the earth. Genesis gives a list of the events that happened during the Earth's forming. 1)light appears on the earth 2)the sky/atmosphere becomes recognizable 3)land appears 4)the sun, moon, and stars become visible 5)fish and birds are created 6)mammals created 7)man created. Modern science agrees with this order. Finally, God says, "Let us create man in our image." Who is he talking to? His son. Like them, we have the capacity for creativity, love and emotion on a scale that no other animal has. I would not argue that God could not have used evolution to create. Of course He could have. But he choose not to. Instead of all coming from a common ancestor, His creations are each unique, displaying attributes and quirks that are unlike any others.

....... evolution is true. I am not really interested in arguing this point at the moment, but... the simple issue is that common traits are so much a matter of biological study and knowledge, and the change in fossils over time, and all of this stuff, is so big, that nobody reasonably denies this in the scientific community at this point. Going this direction... just isn't even tenable.

Even further, modern science DOESN'T agree with the order. Birds came into existence AFTER land animals. The Biblical order has birds coming into existence BEFORE land animals. This is a factual disagreement in order.

Quote:
Does anyone truly doubt that it was possible for men to be made from dirt? Is that not where the "primordial soup" came from more or less? The universe is 98 percent hydrogen and we share much of the same chemical properties as dirt. I choose to believe in God and creation. You choose to believe in the Soup and evolution. Neither of us witnessed either one. Can we agree on that much? Until the 1800's, pretty much everyone believed in spontaneous generation. This means that, for example, when you leave meat out for several days, flies are produced from the meat rather than by the mating of flies. This was considered a scientific fact. While we all agree (I hope) that this is absurd, how can you believe that life was produced from similar material?

We weren't made from dirt. Instead the "primordial soup" is in reference to early earth conditions, which... were dramatically different than that, and actually had creatures develop in the water, which was full of various chemicals.

I consider the use of God as an explanatory matter for abiogenesis to be relatively ad hoc. It's a God of the gaps kind of explanation.

I know about abiogenesis used to be common, however, early earth abiogenesis is an entirely different notion than the spontaneous generation idea. Abiogenesis refers to the creation of cells/proto-cells that allowed evolution to occur. Spontaneous generation is the idea of multicelled organisms growing out of meat.

Quote:
Not long after putting Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, one of the spirits decided they he wanted more than he had been given. He, in effect, wanted to usurp the position of God. To do this, he targeted the youngest of God's creations: Eve. Using ventriloquism to make it appear that a snake was speaking to her, this spirit had the following conversation with Eve:

He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Genesis 3:1-5

Ventriloquism???? First of all, that's not in the Bible. Second of all..... if this is a rationalization of the Bible, either you're wantonly violating the text, or this is entirely ad hoc, as the talking snake isn't alone in uncredible statements.

And of course, why does this make sense? If God is this all-knowing and all-powerful being, or even anywhere close, then how could a usurper even have the idea without being a complete moron? Why wouldn't God even correct such a moron before the being went on the disastrous path? I don't think this is plausible.

Quote:
This offspring that would crush the serpent, or devil, became the thing of legends. It brought to birth the legends of Hercules, Nimrod, and Osiris among many others. These myths, though, were but a shadow of the reality that God had in mind. They finally came to fulfillment with the birth, life, and death of Jesus. This was the physical embodiment of that 1st spirit that God had created so many, many years ago. His temporary death proved to be but a wound to the heel. His coming triumph over Satan the Devil will be the final (fatal) blow to that Serpent's head.

Where do you get the idea that other myths are derived from the Bible's story of Genesis. Just curious, as I see little reason to assign Greek heroes a role in expressing Biblical prophecy.

Quote:
Now, Awesomelyglorious has made the argument that the same logic applied to the existence of God could be applied to Cthulu. Let's forget the obvious fact that Cthulu is not meant to be interpreted as being a real god and that he is not believed in by any sane and intelligent person anywhere. Instead, let's focus on God's Creatorship. Since He created all things, He has the right to determine what is right and wrong. He instills those values into us. After all, I don't think anyone here condones murder, and neither does God as the Law clearly states (Exodus 20:13). Murder, of course, is defined as the unlawful killing of another human with malicious intention (Webster's). So I hope we can agree that that is wrong. Had God chosen to make that all right, it would be. But then, we would be completely different people in a completely different world. As fnord notes in his blog, there is only way that things turned out. Forget the alternate possibilities. There is only one universe. And in it, God has set the rules, and you have an inner sense of them whether you acknowledge Him or not (Romans 2:14)

I don't know what exactly you are rebutting though, as God's creatorship has very little to do with my actual argument. The entire focus on this is a deflection, as unless you are saying that God's goodness is really a meaningless term, or that despite all claims to the contrary, none of these variables have any relationship to real ones(like God actually isn't love for instance), this doesn't actually help anything. Either God is loving, good in a sense that expresses meaning, and so on, or he isn't. If he isn't then.... a lot of theology is flat-out wrong.

Quote:
You often hear from Christians, "Jesus died for our sins." Indeed he did. But there's more to that. In fact, where many Christians get it wrong is in thinking that humanity's salvation was the most important thing for Jesus. It was important, but THE MOST important thing Jesus was here for was to vindicate God's Name. He wanted to proved that a perfect, sinless human follower of God could stand all the tests of evil and remain unblemished. In doing this, he proved that God's way is the best, that Eve was wrong in choosing to dispbey all those years ago. If we take the Vindication of God, not the Salvation of Man, as the theme of the Bible and the reason for what has happened these past few millenia, we will have many of the answers some of you have brought up. Why the flood? Why the plagues upon Egypt? Why the destruction of Canaan and other nations? God answers this question to Moses.

How does Jesus prove this? You made an assertion about proof, but it doesn't match anything really in the text about the importance of Christ's blood. Nor does Christ's death on the cross really prove that Eve's way was worse, after all, Eve didn't die on a cross.

Finally, why does God's name even have to be vindicated? Who is credibly accusing it? If nobody is, then there's no reason to try to vindicate it. If somebody is, then there's got to b ea real concern.

Quote:
And that is what's most important: that everyone knows that He is God Almighty and that He is our rightful King. He sets the boundaries for us and tells us what we should do. But He also loves us. He wants to take care of us. He wants us to be happy, healthy and safe.

And that undermines the earlier attempt to use creatorship to blunt the problem of evil. If God loves us, then there is a real issue.

Even further, you really haven't shown that God showing his almightiness or his love is best done by KILLING LOADS AND LOADS OF PEOPLE! The idea of this is just ridiculous. It's on the level of reductio ad absurdum. Seriously, if we weren't talking about the sky-fairy, the idea would be dismissed and dead on that ground alone.

Quote:
And there's more. Why, you ask, does God not stop suffering if He has the power to do it. Why does He not cure the blind, deaf, cancerous, or regenerate missing limbs? Well, there would have to be a lot more to fixing the world as it is then just curing diseases or ailments. There are people on this planet who could not continue to exist the way they are. Revelation points to some of humanity being destroyed because they simply will not conform to God's standards, even after having proof of His existence. God doesn't want to do that.

Then why not do this sooner, so that way LESS of the people who have to be destroyed exist? I mean, the longer God waits, the more people destroyed there will likely be, simply because of the existence of more people. The world's population is increasing over time, and humanity is still persisting... so the problem isn't getting solved. Even further.... is this even a credible response? You say that this is a possibility, but no critic is obliged to say that this stubbornness is likely actual, or that this method of doing things is likely the most effective way. I think it's silly.

Quote:
Some of you may be saying now, "Well, if I see proof of God, then I will believe." Will you? In Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, this conversation takes place.

Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Luke 16:27-31

Jesus seems to be indicating that we have everything we need in the Scriptures to know that God exists and what he wants from us. If you won't believe from these, there is not much hope that you will believe even if you see miracles like the dead rising. I ask that you take this into consideration.

So, scripture, without evidence or ANYTHING that really follows our best epistemic practices, should be considered evidence enough????? There is nothing to consider here. You're not actually presenting an honest idea, but a strange set of apologetics to help you avoid ever coming into contact with critical thinking or truth. If this is a good argument, then it would rest on itself, not rest on my stubborn-headedness about it.

Quote:
My friends, I don't wish to offend or make enemies of any of you. I feel that I have an obligation to tell you what I know to be true. Some of you feel that same obligation I think. My word might not mean much to you, as I am only a single voice going out across cyberspace. You don't anything about me except what I write on this board. But I tell you that I am sincere. I care about each of you and about your welfare. I truly believe the things I say and am worried that you will not take it seriously until it is too late. Please consider this information to be from a concerned, educated colleague who wants the best for you.

If knowledge requires truth, then you don't know it to be true. If knowledge requires justification in belief.... you haven't even persuaded me that much of that. I mean, a lot of what you present is a generic theistic argument(and put together in its non-deductive formulation, which reduces credibility for some of it), and thus can't help you establish the truth of Christianity. Most of the rest.... just isn't actually evidence for Christianity. You've attempted to REBUT an argument against Christianity, but I don't think you've even succeeded at that, and you don't actually have an argument FOR your favored belief if you really look at it. So.... I don't really think any of us ought to accept what is written.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

13 May 2011, 1:13 am

@BurntOutMom: Assuming you already know the words "Christ" and "Messiah" are the same ...

BurntOutMom wrote:
The [Messiah], whether Jesus or not, would not -in theory- be human.

You are absolutely correct, and that is reason number two for ditching "trinity".

Reason number one is the simple fact of Yahuah being One, of course, and there are people who say Yahuah, Himself, is the Messiah to come.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

13 May 2011, 1:28 am

leejosepho wrote:
@BurntOutMom: Assuming you already know the words "Christ" and "Messiah" are the same ...

BurntOutMom wrote:
The [Messiah], whether Jesus or not, would not -in theory- be human.

You are absolutely correct, and that is reason number two for ditching "trinity".

Reason number one is the simple fact of Yahuah being One, of course, and there are people who say Yahuah, Himself, is the Messiah to come.


Yes, I am aware that "Christ" and "Messiah"are the same thing... That is specifically why I referred to him as "the Christ", and not as Jesus... Jesus is the name of a man, Christ/Messiah the role he is thought by some to have played. By substituting words in my statement you prove outright that you know what I meant, so I don't understand the need to reword my statement.

And... though I agree that, in the way I would interpret the texts, there is no substantiation for the trinity, when delving into religious texts there is no such thing as "simple facts".



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

13 May 2011, 1:42 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ventriloquism???? First of all, that's not in the Bible


:lmao:


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

13 May 2011, 1:47 am

BurntOutMom wrote:
Yes, I am aware that "Christ" and "Messiah"are the same thing... That is specifically why I referred to him as "the Christ", and not as Jesus... Jesus is the name of a man, Christ/Messiah the role he is thought by some to have played. By substituting words in my statement you prove outright that you know what I meant, so I don't understand the need to reword my statement.

I have a personal aversion to the word "Christ" and never use it, and I apologize if it seemed I might in any way be correcting you or whatever.

If I understand correctly, "Messiah" and/or "Christ" can simply mean "Anointed One", and that means there are many "Messiahs" mentioned in Scripture even if not literally mentioned in that specific way. And then, of course, and as you might already know, there are "types and shadows" throughout ... and that leaves someone like Moses fittingly called a "Messiah". But then within Christianity, of course, the word "Christ" seems quite-often mis-perceived as actually being some kind of holy (set apart) surname to be exclusively attached to "Jesus" ... and there is another reason I typically "refuse", as such, to use that word.

BurntOutMom wrote:
And... though I agree that, in the way I would interpret the texts, there is no substantiation for the trinity, when delving into religious texts there is no such thing as "simple facts".

Noted! :wink:

And oh, have you ever heard anyone say "Damn" is not "God's" last name?! :roll:


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

13 May 2011, 1:50 am

Vigilans wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ventriloquism???? First of all, that's not in the Bible


:lmao:

Well, I mean... seriously, like we're making up this convoluted story just because the scripture makes little sense. So... I mean, seriously, it's just kind of silly.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

13 May 2011, 2:04 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ventriloquism???? First of all, that's not in the Bible


:lmao:

Well, I mean... seriously, like we're making up this convoluted story just because the scripture makes little sense. So... I mean, seriously, it's just kind of silly.

Yeah, that is certainly the first time I had ever heard that one!


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

13 May 2011, 2:08 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ventriloquism???? First of all, that's not in the Bible


:lmao:

Well, I mean... seriously, like we're making up this convoluted story just because the scripture makes little sense. So... I mean, seriously, it's just kind of silly.


I wish there was ventriloquism in the Bible. I'm sure it would be much more lively! The Ventriloquism Apocalypse doesn't sound so ominous, and the Ventriloquism Rapture brings to mind all the Christians 'Rapture' involving transporting them to some kind of crazy nether world where they are all ventriloquist puppets, fully conscious and being animated by the extraterrestrial reptilian shapeshifter masters who had been lying to us all, all along


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

13 May 2011, 2:28 am

leejosepho wrote:
BurntOutMom wrote:
Yes, I am aware that "Christ" and "Messiah"are the same thing... That is specifically why I referred to him as "the Christ", and not as Jesus... Jesus is the name of a man, Christ/Messiah the role he is thought by some to have played. By substituting words in my statement you prove outright that you know what I meant, so I don't understand the need to reword my statement.

I have a personal aversion to the word "Christ" and never use it, and I apologize if it seemed I might in any way be correcting you or whatever.

If I understand correctly, "Messiah" and/or "Christ" can simply mean "Anointed One", and that means there are many "Messiahs" mentioned in Scripture even if not literally mentioned in that specific way. And then, of course, and as you might already know, there are "types and shadows" throughout ... and that leaves someone like Moses fittingly called a "Messiah". But then within Christianity, of course, the word "Christ" seems quite-often mis-perceived as actually being some kind of holy (set apart) surname to be exclusively attached to "Jesus" ... and there is another reason I typically "refuse", as such, to use that word.


The OT specifically prophecies The Messiah that will come and make atonement for our sins. I have never heard anyone refer to Moses as a messiah. I would call him a prophet, but I don't know if that title is attributed to him in the texts either... My point is just that though messiah might translate to "anointed one"... when people speak of The Messiah, there is no mistake about whom they are talking about. We can molest intended definitions all night long, but that doesn't truly alter the original intent.

Again, we are mincing words and straying from points.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

13 May 2011, 6:11 am

BurntOutMom wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
If I understand correctly, "Messiah" and/or "Christ" can simply mean "Anointed One", and that means there are many "Messiahs" mentioned in Scripture even if not literally mentioned in that specific way. And then, of course, and as you might already know, there are "types and shadows" throughout ... and that leaves someone like Moses fittingly called a "Messiah". But then within Christianity, of course, the word "Christ" seems quite-often mis-perceived as actually being some kind of holy (set apart) surname to be exclusively attached to "Jesus" ... and there is another reason I typically "refuse", as such, to use that word.


The OT specifically prophecies The Messiah that will come and make atonement for our sins. I have never heard anyone refer to Moses as a messiah. I would call him a prophet, but I don't know if that title is attributed to him in the texts either... My point is just that though messiah might translate to "anointed one"... when people speak of The Messiah, there is no mistake about whom they are talking about. We can molest intended definitions all night long, but that doesn't truly alter the original intent.

Again, we are mincing words and straying from points.

I had thought we were progressing along, but you can make the call there. :oops:

Personally, I also tend to hold the word "Messiah" in reserve for whoever is either coming or returning, and so yes, and especially among Christians, it is not all that common to think of Moses as (even a type of) a messiah. Overall, however, I thought your "logic" (as I saw things) showing why Christianity's "Jesus" could not be only half-man was brilliant!


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Andre_br
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 8 Feb 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24

14 May 2011, 12:01 am

leejosepho wrote:
kladky wrote:
... Why, you ask, does God not stop suffering if He has the power to do it. Why does He not cure the blind, deaf, cancerous, or regenerate missing limbs? Well ...

One thing to keep in mind here in PPR is the fact many/most people asking those kinds of questions are not seeking answers for any reason other than to then just tear into them ... and then, of course, they expect the rest of us to believe they are actually doing so with ...

Ah, never mind. Anything I might say there will just also get mutilated beyond all recognition ... and then now for saying what I just have, I might next get accused of hiding something -- :roll: -- or just running off into some corner and thereby allegedly admitting ...

Ah, never mind!

Truly, thought, you make many good points any true seekers can already read for themselves without need of further comment anyway.

Personally, however, here is one that caught my own eye:

Quote:
You often hear from Christians, "Jesus died for our sins." ... But ... where many Christians get it wrong is in thinking humanity's salvation was the most important thing for Jesus. It was important, but THE MOST important thing Jesus was here for was ... to prove that a perfect, sinless human follower of God could stand all the tests of evil and remain unblemished. In doing this, he proved God's way is the best ...

Yes, and then we have this ...

"Pure religion and vndefiled before God and the Father, is this, to visit the fatherlesse and widowes in their affliction, and to keepe himselfe vnspotted from the world." (KJV, 1611)

So simple, and yet so costly, eh?! :wink:


Most times people make "existential questions" they are not really asking anything. They already have firm believes and just want to prove to themselves or for their peers they are right by testing their "arguments" against others, much like in a friendly spar. So, most times when someone asks me something like "Do you believe in god?" out of the blue I just take it like they are meant just as an interjection that happen to present itself in a similar fashion than a question.



BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

14 May 2011, 12:26 am

leejosepho wrote:
BurntOutMom wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
If I understand correctly, "Messiah" and/or "Christ" can simply mean "Anointed One", and that means there are many "Messiahs" mentioned in Scripture even if not literally mentioned in that specific way. And then, of course, and as you might already know, there are "types and shadows" throughout ... and that leaves someone like Moses fittingly called a "Messiah". But then within Christianity, of course, the word "Christ" seems quite-often mis-perceived as actually being some kind of holy (set apart) surname to be exclusively attached to "Jesus" ... and there is another reason I typically "refuse", as such, to use that word.


The OT specifically prophecies The Messiah that will come and make atonement for our sins. I have never heard anyone refer to Moses as a messiah. I would call him a prophet, but I don't know if that title is attributed to him in the texts either... My point is just that though messiah might translate to "anointed one"... when people speak of The Messiah, there is no mistake about whom they are talking about. We can molest intended definitions all night long, but that doesn't truly alter the original intent.

Again, we are mincing words and straying from points.

I had thought we were progressing along, but you can make the call there. :oops:

Personally, I also tend to hold the word "Messiah" in reserve for whoever is either coming or returning, and so yes, and especially among Christians, it is not all that common to think of Moses as (even a type of) a messiah. Overall, however, I thought your "logic" (as I saw things) showing why Christianity's "Jesus" could not be only half-man was brilliant!


Awe-shucks. And, I wasn't trying to shut you down, just redirect.. I hate it when the debate is reduced to throwing definitions back and forth.