to jenyar, (this is long, get a cup of hot chocolate or go to the toilet if you need to now
)
I know you're not short-sighted, but what would you base such observation on?
hmm, i don’t know, the wording of your reply maybe?
Keep in mind I specified "any significance beyond the obvious". It can't be based on empirical evidence, because science does not assign significance.
why do you have to assign things significance? can you not accept nature for what it is?
Therefore not believing in miracles because according to you they ultimately fall within the realm of nature is a subjective evaluation based on your limits of what comprises "nature".
once again with the words “your limits” (you don’t know how much these words annoy me). i believe in the universe and what happens in it is all explainable because if it happens (and it is within the observed laws of this universe) then it is natural, no matter how few times this occurrence happens. BUT, miracles DON’T fall into the laws of the universe- therefore, why even assume they exist? i have not seen one ounce of evidence in favor of miracles actually occurring, or any convincing arguments- i perhaps should pick up that book by cs lewis you told me about.
You necessarily discount the significance of human experience because it falls outside the "significance" of natural phenomena. What one person would experience as a miracle would be to you no more "miraculous" than, say, the process of evolution.
you just don’t get me do you? or what i’m saying. i’m saying the human experience is an unreliable judge of what constitutes a miracle or anything in this universe. you do realize humans are very capable of making themselves believe in events and things that never occurred. and i don’t assign significance to anything, YOU do. the process of evolution isn’t miraculous, what people believe to be miracles are nothing more than self induced beliefs.
Like I said: you have a natural bias which prevents you from recognizing anything "supernatural", even though it might be just as "natural" as everything else.
are you being
serious? i told you i haven’t seen anything supernatural because i
haven’t seen anything supernatural. i have no bias. i have no basis for bias. you on the other hand are extremely biased. significance, the supernatural, you all believe these things because you have to (and you willingly believe in them). you therefore will assign these ideas to many things un-objectively. i don’t see how you can call my point of view biased when i don’t have an active disbelief in those things- i’m just skeptical of them.
Please have a look at Miracles by CS Lewis. I can't describe the argument any better than he did.
whatever, but if you’re basing your argument off what he said i don’t see how it’s going to change my mind seeing you’re both coming from a biased point of view.
Once again: it wasn't for His education. You are living proof that it doesn't really make a difference to people what God knows or doesn't know.
when did i say it was for his education? you said god did it because he didn’t know what death was like then changed tack to this argument.
What better way to demonstrate salvation than by saving, or to demonstrate power over death than ressurrection.
yeah, by showing a select few (and i really mean about three) people that he was alive again. besides, death is a natural occurrence, not something to be
saved from. as well, humans have strived to live forever almost as long as we have existed in this form- gods “power” (with which you refer to then downplay) would then seem relevant to us because it is our want, not his, to live forever.
Jesus was already King, Prophet and High Priest - but He demonstrated what those positions meant to God: servitude and sacrifice; not human power. God's mercy stretches to the oppressed and the exiled because He identified with them. That is why they believed. God did not magnanimously promise each of them a house an a VW Beetle, He promised them a place in heaven. He strengthened their faith in God, not in a man's ability to rule.
and you know this all how? how do you even know you believe in what he did? if you believed in what jesus believed in you would be jewish.
You haven't answered my question about what "days" are supposed to be, or how accurate your definition really is. God defined "day" as light in Genesis 1. But you insist a "day" means 24 hours - or at least the hours of daylight. Does every place on earth get the same amount of daylight? If you interpret Genesis as only geocentric you are missing the point, just like the flat-earthers did. It's in fact Deocentric. And for the humanocentric prespectve, read the other creation account in Genesis.
do i need to? you yourself posted a reply that showed that most (if not all) biblical scholars believe that the day in the bible was most definitely the day we experience today. who exactly are you to disagree with them? Or the word of your god? indeed why would it say a day if it didn’t mean a day? it sure isn’t for the benefit of your god as he exists outside of our universe (he wrote it, why would he say day other than to clarify to us?). i’m not being pedantic about the hours of the day or sunlight hours in a day, nor am i seeing it as the “flat-earthers” did (you presume so much, it must be part of your nature seeing you manage to do it with abandon). so i ask back to you, what is your interpretation? is it an indefinite time? i am interested to see how you interpret the account in genesis as i don’t see any other way you can.
If you look at most religions, you'll see that in principle most of their ideas are similar.
because they have ripped each other off over the centuries.
"Taking ideas" is a human trait. Religion is a human enterprise.
yup, it’s all about us. god is all about us.
The question is how much those ideas reflect the living God.
you or anyone else can’t have any possible idea. what is written in the bible is no more valid than any other religious books. besides, you yourself manage to question what is a pretty clear message about the time it took for god to create earth, you question your living god.
Christmas is a Christian adaptation of a Roman feast,
it was actually a paganistic ritual that celebrated the end of harvest and appealed to spirits (not god) for a good coming harvest/year. the english church had to assimilate the holiday because it couldn’t abolish it, even though it supported rituals against the churches belief. it therefore became christmas day- i KNOW this. do you know what you’re talking? about or is this another one of your assumptions (i think it is because i know i’m right about this one).
it is the differences which you should pay attention to. That is what defines them. My God is in principle no different than any other god. But what distinguished the God of Israel from Baal or Horus or Tammuz?
show me the differences, the jazzed up christianity that we see today has changed to keep up with the times, but go back to when christianity was actually christianity and i bet you the differences are few to none.
"In principle" many religions are looking for "the same god" and have similar religious ceremonies - just like people over the world could be looking at the "same" television, or people in a house might look through the same window - but what do they see, and what does it change in them?
what they want to see. what they want to change.
So are you saying any lack of self-control is simply in absence of will? That if you just willed something it would happen?
you have an excellent way of misunderstanding me and putting words in my mouth (your assumptions again). you have to do things for them to become a reality, lack of self control doesn’t have much to do with your will. I don’t even know why i have to say this to you, perhaps it is so you will
stop putting words in my mouth and stop coming up with these stupid ideas- “That if you just willed something it would happen?” for example.
Have you ever been addicted to something? It's not from the lack of will that people can't stop smoking, it's from the weakness of their resolve.
well, it’s here i will clarify myself as to my idea of what a persons “will” is. if you want to do something, and you have resolved to do it, it is your will that enforces your action or non-action. i was addicted to chewing my nails (like a maniac) and sucking my thumb (when i was younger of course). i resolved not to do it any more and through strength of will i stopped. i don’t really see the difference between resolve and will, i think they’re synomous.
If you know something is killing you, it should be "obvious" that you have to stop, but why do some people rather go into denial than act?
most smokers i know can read and therefore know it’s bad and can kill them (you know, the labels on the packs?). they either don’t care or haven’t been able to give up.
Just look how much good "shock and awe" did to convince Iraq of America's superiority.
sometimes i wonder if you read what i write? i
said that’s
not what jesus would do if his was king, he would be nice. but then again, you’ll probably find some way to misread this as well.
Your words echo the crowd: "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Jesus had plenty of opportunity to deny He was the Christ, like John did, but instead He corrected people who thought He was not.
i echo no one, it’s just your unique way of reading what i write that makes you think i do. and AGAIN, when did christ EVER admit to being god?
Jesus was king, and he didn't use military might to establish His kingdom.
as far as i’m concerned he established no kingdom- it was those after him that erected HIS temple.
As you say, he was just "nice". Don't you see? A Man believed to be anointed with God's own authority and power, endures injustice, suffering and shame so that people who endure the same might have real, personal hope.
he could’ve been
nicer as a king. don’t you
see- he could’ve stopped the suffering and the pain, but of course, that doesn’t make sense as it would’ve been the nice thing to do- as well as inspiring hope.
And [/i]because[/i] nothing on earth did Jesus justice, God himself showed Him justice. No man can save himself, but Jesus could and didn't. Can't you see how powerful that message is to people who can't or don't expect justice or mercy? To people who are trapped by suffering, famine or oppression, unable to even pick themselves up from the ground, never mind "achieving enlightenment"?
that is no message. that doesn’t even make sense. a real message would’ve been, “here, i’ve stopped all your suffering and all injustice”, but again, your all powerful god is incapable of doing this.
The cross is where He nailed our suffering and inequities to. A king would be above the law, especially the most powerful one the world has ever seen. But God's laws were already established! Jesus did not come to overthrow the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. He lived as a servant and died as a king. That is what God promises everyone. A king would not be crucified, but dethroned and exiled. That would have alienated God from his people even more.
lol, i don’t know how you know what god wants or thinks but whatever. see, suffering and inequity hasn’t been nailed anywhere, it’s happening all over this world as i speak, every day since jesus was supposedly nailed to that cross. god didn’t do a very good job did he? you obviously don’t know anything about history either if you don’t think a king would’ve been killed. you contradict yourself as much as the book you believe in. the point in me replying is practically naught as you obviously give no thought to what i’m saying.
By rejecting the Son as King, you have rejected God as authority. What will happen when He comes to rule over his kingdom? Where will he find you? Laying siege to it, or inside its walls?
lol, i only reject the bs found in the bible. it contains some good ideas (like anything) but if god is that stupid, that juvenile, and essentially contradictive of himself, tell me, what’s not to reject? there might be a god, but it’s definitely not the one found in the bible. and i don’t care where god finds me (if there is one), as he’ll know i’m a good person, one that doesn’t need to hide behind walls.
Recognizing the possibility of God's authority is not the same as recognizing his authority. That's like saying you will wait to be found guilty before you stop doing the crime.
do you want me to explain myself
again? i said if god came down to earth i’d eat humble pie, i didn’t say i’d stop being who i am. besides, if i was found guilty by your god then Carmen electra is a man.
He did not sit back, which is why a god who is "playing with the stars" would not hold a candle to one who could by one man divide the world between those who believe in Him and those who don't.
WOW, a god in his infinite wisdom and power uses one man to do that, sounds like something any god with infinite wisdom and power could do.
Once again you COMPLELETY miss my point and what i was replying to. i was saying..... you know what? it’s not actually worth it. you won’t get the point either way.
And that is why He can be save every Joe Blogs that ever walked the planet.
it’s nice that you are so completely brainwashed
:m:
atheory
