Is it possible to believe in God, and be a darwinist at the same time?

[wegs]

wegs

I would not disabuse anyone of what they believe about god, as long as they reciprocate and don't try to claim that what they believe about god dictates reality for all. That is Jan's error. Belief may provide comfort and peace(the human psyche is not as rigorous as human science, it is possible to believe things which are not true, scientifically)and it thus can be a good thing. But if one thinks their religious convictions overrule the knowledge science gives us, one is being delusional. Fundamentalism in religion is idiocy, not wisdom. It is thinking that you know what god is, what he wants and how he does things(if he indeed does exist at all), what he thinks about others("God Hates Fags" anyone?), and they claim certain knwledge when they have nothing of the kind.and that is evil in the world(often in the name of one god or another). Don't get me wrong, even Fundies have a right to believe and worship as they will and to gather with like minded others(as long as they impose on those who want to be imposed upon). But when they try to project their idiocy on everyone(abortion, gay marriage, homophobia, etc.)it is ALWAYS wrong for a free society.

Hello...I agree.
It doesn't have a place in public square, and it was never intended to! lol If people say they follow Jesus, then they should recall that he stated 'give Caesar what is Caesar's.' Basically, don't mix religion with government or public policy, he meant. Likewise, I believe in God, and I have a 'right' to be left alone about it.
That's the beauty of our fine nation. You can practice your religoin safely, but keep it to yourself.
That doesn't mean to hide it. But, it means, to not infringe on others who don't believe as you do.

I wonder sometimes, how we (a country) got here.
A slow fade. Nothing happens overnight.

Right now I am simply placing him into a category we could call "people who insist that anyone who claims to believe in God and evolution is full of shit about the believing in God part".

And he fits perfectly, wouldn't you say?

Thing is...why is it hard for any believer of God, christian or not...to believe that God is behind evolution?

You know what wegs? I don't sign up to forums that were created for the express purpose of allowing religious people to freely discuss religion just so I can stir the pot by throwing evolution in their faces. Do you know why I don't do that, and have never done that? Because I think they should be allowed to discuss their religion in peace if they want to.

maybe you should. i'm kidding. lol i hear you, and i think that's a great point. but i will say...this site is quite hospitable to those who wish to have a healthy dialogue about religion and faith. not without its bumps, but that's a good thing. it's really a wonderfully curious thing to someone like me.

I know it's easy to forget sometimes, but this is a science forum. It was created for the express purpose of allowing people to discuss science freely. I initially signed up here around about the same time I finished reading my first Brian Greene book and was excited about discussing some of the things that I had learned. But people like Jan, and others like him, signed up here for the express purpose of throwing religion in everyone's face. It wouldn't even be so bad if it was restricted to this particular subforum (which was itself originally designed to be a place where religion was discussed in the context of science specifically) but it regularly spills out into all the other subforums too. So far from this being a situation where notions such as "live and let live" are being respected, divisiveness has been introduced on purpose. In fact that's exactly what this thread is really all about. It's a purposeful attack on science as well as the legitimacy of the theological views of any religious person who embraces it.

I hadn't thought of it like that. A thread gets carried away, you forget how it all started. So, this thread's intent is to encourage people of faith to disregard the theory of evolution as plausible, you're saying? I believe in a Creator AND evolution.

If Jan thinks this, I'm not clear yet as to why.

And now I have returned the favour by preparing a dish for you too

I'm really stuffed, thank you.
I may come back for seconds another time, though.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Jesus wasn't really crucified because he appeared to people after He was crucified? What an impotent argument. Moving on...

It corresponds with '' but so it was made to appear to them,....''. .
a)His body was crucified, so it appeared to some people that he himself had been killed.
b)He appeared to some people after his body was killed without as much as a blemish.

So based on that the verse from the quran makes complete sense.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." - John 1:1-3

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." - John 1:14

Just establishing the fleshly incarnation of God in the form of Jesus. Read the whole chapter for proper context.

Now read John Chapter 19. Clearly the torture, mockery, crucifixion and eventual death happened to the fleshly incarnation of God.

Yes, it appeared real. If was real, the he would have been seen by some people because his body would be well on it's way to becoming worm food.
Even the verses you cite should give you some clues. The Word has been with God from the begining. The begining of what? The begining of creation. The word wasn't made flesh, it became flesh, and the flesh was part of what God made. Upon giving up his fleshly life, went back to his own position, to be with God.

Regarding death:

"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made Himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!" - Philippians 2:5-8

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." - Romans 5:7-9

"For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living." - Romans 14:8-10

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures" - 1 Corinthians 15:2-4

"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" - Galatians 2:20-21

I'd say that's pretty clear. Jesus may have risen again, but he was definitely crucified, and he definitely made Himself obedient to death. In fact that was the whole point.

The qu'ran doesn't say he wasn't crucified, it say's that it was made to appear as though he was, so for all intent and purpose he was percieved as being crucified.
The fact that the bible say's he was seen after the crucifixion put's that into percpective.

"They said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”—But they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not—Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." - Qur'an 4:157

Your interpretation clearly violates your stated methodology: "I'm concentrating purely on the source, the scriptures themselves, taking what they say literally, and drawing from it the only conclusion one can without contradicting, or interpreting the words in such a way that they have to give surplus explanations to match them."

On the contrary, I simply focused on the ''but so it was made to appear to them...''. That clearly confirms that he was percieved as being crucified. Couild it be any clearer?

Further, you also have the following problems to deal with:


1 "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God" - Mark 1:1

2 "The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" - Quran 9:30


2 "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" - Col 2:9
""Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage" - Philippians 2:5 (presented in context further up)

3 "They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent." - Quran 5:17


So not only does the Quran contradict the Bible on the topic of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, it also rejects as false the clear biblical affirmation of His divinity.

2 This is said by the Jews, and according to Allah, they imitate the saying of people who also didn't believe. So their acting as though they believe but they don't. Not that what they are saying in untrue.

3 It's just explaining that Jesus isn't God, and as Jesus never claims to be God, and constantly refers to Him as The One Who Sent him.

So the quran does NOT contradict the Bible (at least the verse you gave), and does NOT reject his divine status (at least from nothing you posted).

That gels of course since you've already shown how hopelessly ignorant you are of Christian theology.

I'm not overly concerned with ''Christian theology'', or any sectarien theology, I'm just into trying to cultivate knowledge of God, and the scriptures is a good place to start.

But we're not even going to stop here. Speaking of the scripturally based cases there are to make regarding the fundamental theological differences between Christianity and other religions, I refer you again to some of the articles I linked you to in a previous post:

I told you already that I'm not going to discuss religion, and the reasons why.
This thread is not about religion.

But also, because in criticizing what I maintain was a perfectly reasonable catholic perspective on how scripture should be read while simultaneously holding that your own rather creative reading of the Quran was above reproach, you're totally asking for it.

You're clearly going to ignore what I say, aren't you?

I've done nothing but use the scriptures to explain the point in question, it's not my problem that you see things from a flesh and blood perspective.
The nature of Jesus Christ, his asociation and relationship with God, his ability due to being completely surrendered to God, his great wisdom which he attributes to God, his teaching, etc, is all there for you to read and try to comprehend. It's not difficult at all.

jan.

 

[iceaura]

Jesus teaching contradicts that.
It's not my opinion, it's in the gospels.

Your opinion of what's in the Gospels is noted. My version (the King James English translation of the original Greek, a language not spoken by Jesus as far as anyone knows) contains little or nothing about the origins of human beings, none of it in the ascribed teachings of Jesus. Even in the other parts of the Bible I own the accounts are long on metaphorical and symbolic narrative, short on physical fact.

Your opinion on the appropriate kind of belief best suited to Bible stories is also noted, but as you have proven an unreliable source with regard to every other aspect of that book your style of belief has little to recommend it.

Thing is, something I've gleaned from all the exchanges with Jan, is that he seems to be ....at peace. With himself, with his faith.

He keeps peace with himself by projecting the nasty, judgmental, and fundamentally dishonest aspects of his fundamentalist Christian belief system unto everyone else (starting with the authors of the Bible).

 

[Aqueous Id]

the King James English translation of the original Greek, a language not spoken by Jesus as far as anyone knows.

Interesting you should mention that. It was the first thing that occurred to me when Jan mentioned "the word of Jesus". Not only is this hearsay from an unknown author of a story passed through oral tradition, but it has arisen in Greek, whether or not it ever existed in the native tongue, which should have been Aramaic. Of course if Jesus had supernatural powers, he could just as well have engraved the message "Evolution is a lie" in the rocks of the earth, instead of leaving us the fossils. In that case he could have said it in the languages of all of the people who he knew would ever examine a rock. The most oblique way to tell us that all humans descended through the special creation of Adam is to leave us Homo Erectus, Neanderthals, and all the other curiosities that dispel that notion. Further the genome research should point to common ancestry from Adam and Eve. Of course that presumes God is rational, and that God is a good communicator, all of which is controverted by reality.

It's a great discussion point all by itself. Why would anyone take Greek as the official language of Jesus? He certainly didn't spend any time there, and mentions nothing about the culture or why he gave it dominion over Judea. It's a huge bone in the craw of fundamentalism, one that never surfaces quite as succinctly as you put it here.

...contains little or nothing about the origins of human beings, none of it in the ascribed teachings of Jesus. Even in the other parts of the Bible I own the accounts are long on metaphorical and symbolic narrative, short on physical fact.

I'm thinking: what are we, Jesus, mind readers? Why all the cryptic messages? Why not just a 2-page brochure in plain speak? One that says: "Look people, I coded the DNA to throw you off, and I planted all the fossils for the same reason. But look, it was just a gag, even God gets bored and likes to putter in the garage. So ignore all of that, and here's why" followed by some magic code word like "Jesus Mary Joseph" that lets us blink the sun like a Clap-On Clap-Off light switch thingy. Something. Anything. But fundies are content with all of this controversy, and seem to have no opinion why God chose to speak only very long ago, when people could least understand him, and then he just fell silent, as if everything that needed to be said was already covered. If anything, Jesus should have descended from Heaven when Darwin first published, at least to make an announcement. "People, this is God. Time for an update. When I said I breathed into the clay and thus created Adam, I was referring metaphorically to the spontaneous generation of living RNA from the primordial soup. Go ahead and accept as literal truth all the science you are able to gather. I'll leave that up to you. But get off the gas about reading the Bible literally. I didn't write it, so stop pinning it on me. That is all for now, at least until you figure out cold fusion. Over and out."

Your opinion on the appropriate kind of belief best suited to Bible stories is also noted, but as you have proven an unreliable source with regard to every other aspect of that book your style of belief has little to recommend it.

This thread is effectively debating the pitfalls of fundamentalism more than anything. Just by pulling at a few strands of fundamentalist logic even in just this post of yours the whole premise of fundamentalism unravels. Where Thomas Paine wrote of the Bible "hearsay upon hearsay" we might imagine him noticing your post and adding ". . . and once you get past that, it leaves fundamentalism as fallacy upon fallacy".

[Jan] keeps peace with himself by projecting the nasty, judgmental, and fundamentally dishonest aspects of his fundamentalist Christian belief system unto everyone else.

It strikes me that fundamentalism is less about Christianity and more about seeing the world through the narrowest filter possible. What began as a worship of a god has become the worship of a book. Of paper and ink. We often speak of how that book is utterly faceless - no past, no source, no place or date of origin, no witness attesting to any of it, nothing whatsoever to corroborate one "tittle or jot" of its content. Still it is brought to bear against the greatest book ever written, the one recorded in the sediment, in the DNA of every organism, in the isotopes, and in every other clue that rushes in at us from the most remote regions of the cosmos. This is the book fundies want to rip pages from, so that children will be raised into the narrowest filter possible, to perpetuate the worship of faceless paper and ink, in what the more general reader may call their anti-book book, their book of censorship.

 

[Rav]

It corresponds with '' but so it was made to appear to them,....''. .
a)His body was crucified, so it appeared to some people that he himself had been killed.

You're not listening to what scripture says Jan. You're not interpreting it literally.

"And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!" - Philippians 2:5-8

It doesn't say "he humbled his body by making it obedient to death", it says he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death. Death, on, a, cross. Also known as crucifixion. God or not, he was up there, suffering. The Bible couldn't be any clearer on this point.

Yes, in the context of Christian theology everyone is essentially spiritually immortal. Bodies may die, but the spirit that inhabits them lives on. But this is also true in the context of Islamic theology. Yet both the Bible and the Qurʼan talk about death all the time. Clearly then death must refer to the physical death of the body in both. So let's examine that verse from the Qur'an (4:157) once more:

"They said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”

So, they were boasting about having killed the physical body of Jesus. I mean even the Jews believed in an afterlife so they couldn't have been boasting about having killed his soul now could they? Of course not. The only thing that makes any sort of sense here is that everyone is simply using the word "death" in the same way: to denote physical death.

—But they killed him not, nor crucified him

And here is the refutation of that claim. No, they didn't kill his body.

but so it was made to appear to them

And the elaboration: it only appeared that they had killed his body.

The majority view here among Islamic scholars is that the person crucified wasn't really Jesus, but someone who looked like him (or simply a body that looked like his). To go along with the minority view you are trying to push here we have to pretend that it is legitimate to redefine words like "death" and "kill", mid-verse, and this is beyond absurd if the interpretation of scripture is supposed to be a straightforward affair as you insist that it is.

, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not—Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise."

And again, they didn't kill his body. The didn't crucify his body either. No, he was raised up to Allah instead. Which is also in stark contrast to this by the way:

"Two rebels were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.

From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”)." - Matt 27:38-46

b)He appeared to some people after his body was killed without as much as a blemish.

Really? Let's see what the Bible has to say:

"Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”" - John 20:24-27

Not so much as a blemish huh? It certainly seems as if that physical body was crucified after all, not that we actually needed any additional verses to establish that.

So based on that the verse from the quran makes complete sense.

Only to those who have deluded themselves as a result of a desperate attempt to defend an absurd theological position (and have also never studied the Bible).

And more to the point of this discussion, only to those who get very creative with their interpretation of scripture (although in your case creativity seems to lead to utter absurdity rather than something interesting).

1 "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God" - Mark 1:1

2 "The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" - Quran 9:30

2 This is said by the Jews, and according to Allah, they imitate the saying of people who also didn't believe. So their acting as though they believe but they don't. Not that what they are saying in untrue.

Wow. Let me get this straight. You're saying that "those who disbelieved [before them]" disbelieved in the idea that Jesus was the son of God but proclaimed it anyway? And that all those who are saying the same thing are just knowingly parroting a falsehood? Is this really your justification for claiming that the Qur'an isn't really disagreeing with the premise that Jesus (the messiah) is the son of Allah (God)? If so, this is laughable.

The Qu'ran is clearly stating that Christians say "The Messiah is the son of Allah". And the Qur'an is correct, because they do. The claim is actually in the bible so why wouldn't they? And the Qur'an is clearly saying that the people who say this are deluded.

This is of course perfectly in line with the Islamic stance on the issue, as detailed here. You really should read this too because one of the most critical factors involved in scriptural interpretation is that it should happen with reference to the greater theological framework that the entirety of the text describes, and this is something that you really don't seem to understand. In fact you read the Bible exactly the same way that most atheists do: a few verses at a time, in relative isolation. And then you pretend you know how it all fits together.

3 It's just explaining that Jesus isn't God, and as Jesus never claims to be God, and constantly refers to Him as The One Who Sent him.

The Bible doesn't teach that Jesus is God? Case in point. You're utterly clueless. Let's review, shall we?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." - John 1:1-3

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." - John 1:14

The Word was God. The Word became flesh. God became flesh. Are you going to interpret it literally, or just screw around?

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. - Col 2:9-10

The fullness of the Deity, in bodily form. The head over every authority. Are you going to interpret it literally, or just screw around?

"The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." - Hebrews 1:3

The exact representation of his being. Exact. Are you going to interpret it literally, or just screw around?

"But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom" - Hebrews 1:8

Read the whole chapter for context. This is God, talking about the Son, and calling him God. Are you going to interpret it literally, or just screw around?

But why the references to Jesus as a Son? How is subservience compatible? It's a fair question, but one that has a biblical answer. And it's an answer that I've already provided by the way:

"In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross!" - Philippians 2:5-8

Jesus, being in very nature God himself, was playing the role of a son. The role of a servant. This is all the explanation we need in order to answer the question and it's right there, in the Bible. So are you going to take it at face value or are you going to screw around? I mean you fucking said that we should interpret scripture literally didn't you? So, welcome to what the bible is actually fucking saying...

That gels of course since you've already shown how hopelessly ignorant you are of Christian theology.

I'm not overly concerned with ''Christian theology'', or any sectarien theology, I'm just into trying to cultivate knowledge of God, and the scriptures is a good place to start.

Guess where the very core of Christian theology comes from? The Bible! Imagine that! And now we've seen some of it, straight from the source

I told you already that I'm not going to discuss religion, and the reasons why.
This thread is not about religion.

Your reasons are bullshit. Religion is an entirely legitimate discussion point in a thread titled as this one happens to be. You can refuse to discuss it all you like, but it's not going away.

The nature of Jesus Christ, his asociation and relationship with God, his ability due to being completely surrendered to God, his great wisdom which he attributes to God, his teaching, etc, is all there for you to read and try to comprehend. It's not difficult at all.

Apparently it is quite difficult for you.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

It corresponds with '' but so it was made to appear to them,....''. .
a)His body was crucified, so it appeared to some people that he himself had been killed.

You're not listening to what scripture says, Jan. You're not interpreting it literally.

"And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!" - Philippians 2:5-8

It doesn't say "he humbled his body by making it obedient to death" it says he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death. Death, on, a, cross. Also known as, crucifixion. God or not, He was up there, suffering. The Bible couldn't be any clearer on this point.

If one has the ability to be obedient to death, that means that one complies with the request, meaning death is powerless less it's permission has been granted.
If death was real, it would occur whether or not Jesus complied. In the OT we understand that A+E were deathless until they fell victim to the illusory material energy.
It also states that ''the wages of sin (transgression from reality) is death (meaning the acceptence of material nature as reality), and the gift of God (the breath, spirit, word...) is eternal life (meaning such a position is not touched by the laws of nature). So everything is being played out, and all intentions are real, but the matrix isn't. It's simply an illusion that we accept as real in our conditioned state.

Yes, in the context of Christian theology everyone is essentially spiritually immortal. Bodies may die, but the spirit that inhabits them lives on. But this is also true in the context of Islamic theology. Yet both the Bible and the Qurʼan talk about death all the time. Clearly, then, death must refer to the physical death of the body in both. So let's examine that verse from the Qur'an (4:157) once more:

"They said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”

So, they were boasting about having killed the physical body of Jesus. I mean even the Jews believed in an afterlife so they couldn't have been boasting about having killed his soul now could they? Of course not. The only thing that makes any sort of sense here is that everyone is simply using the word "death" in the same way: to denote physical death.

Yes, but he clearly didn't die. Did he? Otherwise he would not have been seen post crucifixion, and his body would still have been in the tomb. The qu'ran compliments this by saying that he wasn't killed, that it made to look that way. If you don't accept that, fine, but that is what it says, and that is what I am presenting. You are presenting texts in a way that appeases your personal comprehension, and failing miserably.

Try and work it out from the scriptures, not your own mind, it just isn't up to the task.

The majority view here among Islamic scholars is that the person crucified wasn't really Jesus, but someone who looked like him (or simply a body that looked like his). To go along with the minority view you are trying to push here we have to pretend that it is legitimate to redefine words like "death" and "kill", mid-verse, and this is beyond absurd if the interpretation of scripture is supposed to be a straightforward affair as you insist that it is.

Will you stop being so stubborn. I'm not going along with any view be it popular or unpopular. The scriptures make a claim and I take it literally. Why bother try to work stuff out that you're/we're incapable of comprehending to it's fullness. If we don't like what the scriptures say, fine, we don't accept them. But to attempt to change them to suit the current fashion of the day is totally counterproductive.

Jesus told HIS people that through him they can know God, and can have everlasting life because at that moment in time, he was the light that illuminated the truth, and was therefore the way. That was his mission, and he proved to them that this was the case.

To everyone else it seemed like a mundane occurence: some guy running off his mouth claiming to be the son of God, the king of the jews, the guy who could perform magic tricks, and so on. So they acted out their comprehension of the situation, and Jesus' people acted out their comprehension.

Really? Let's see what the Bible has to say:

"Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”" - John 20:24-27

Not so much as a blemish, huh? It certainly seems as if that physical body was crucified after all, not that we actually needed any additional verses to establish that.

What was it that Thomas refused to believe? He refused to believe that unless he sees the inflicted wounds, he will not believe that the person claimed by Mary to be Jesus is actually Jesus.

Why did he think like this? Because he was trusting his eyes, trusting what he had seen. But we know that what most people had seen on that day, didn't really occur, it was made to look that way. So when Jesus appeared to him he believed that this was Jesus even though there were no injuries to his body.

He had no blemishes.

So based on that the verse from the quran makes complete sense.

Only to those who have deluded themselves as a result of a desperate attempt to defend an absurd theological position (and have also never studied the Bible).

And more to the point of this discussion, only to those who get very creative with their interpretation of scripture (although in your case creativity seems to lead to utter absurdity rather than something interesting).

It's not a theological position, and it is not delusion. It is accepting what is written, and using it's own source to make sense of it, as no other source is capable.
It may sound weird compared to our ordinary mundane experiences, but that is our problem.

The only interpretation by me is the conclusion, the decision that upon reading it, one has to come to. But everything I'm saying is corroborated by the said scripture, whereas you are chopping and changing what is actually said, to get the upperhand in this discussion.

1 "The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God" - Mark 1:1

2 "The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?" - Quran 9:30

2 This is said by the Jews, and according to Allah, they imitate the saying of people who also didn't believe. So their acting as though they believe but they don't. Not that what they are saying in untrue.

1. Wow. Let me get this straight. You're saying that "those who disbelieved [before them]" disbelieved in the idea that Jesus was the son of God, but proclaimed it anyway?

2. And that all those who are saying the same thing are just knowingly parroting a falsehood? Is this really your justification for claiming that the Qur'an isn't really disagreeing with the premise that Jesus (the messiah) is the son of Allah (God)? If so, this is laughable.

1. The text say's ''they imitate the saying of people who also didn't believe''. So yes there are people who make these claims but do not actually believe them (kind of like the theme of this thread). I've made this point loads of times, one is not a theist because one proclaims to be. To believe, one has to actually believe. The scene with Thomas explains that quite nicely.

2. No. They don't know as in they have no knowledge (forgive them for they KNOW NOT what they are doing). They're just talk, no action.

The Qu'ran is clearly saying that the Christians say that "The Messiah is the son of Allah". And the Qur'an is correct about that. They do. The claim is actually in the bible so why wouldn't they? And the Qur'an is clearly saying that the people who say this are deluded.

The quran is making a point. It says that the people say it, but don't believe it (belief is real, not lip service).

In fact you read the Bible exactly the same way that most atheists do: a few verses at a time, in relative isolation. And then you pretend you know how it all fits together.

I have made no such claim.

The Bible doesn't teach that Jesus is God? Case in point. You're utterly clueless. Let's review, shall we?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." - John 1:1-3

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." - John 1:14

The Word was God. The Word became flesh. God became flesh. Are you going to interpret it literally, or just screw around?

If you agree with me, why am I utterly clueless? Or are being sarcastic?

The Word ''became flesh'' not that the Word IS flesh. In the film, the Matrix, they were able to obtain a body made out of the matrix, and their actual self (avatar), and as such they were able to dwell among those who were unaware of their real position. As they became more knowledgable of their surroundings they were able to manipulate it more and more.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. - Col 2:9-10

The fullness of the Deity, in bodily form. The head over every authority. Are you going to interpret it literally, or just screw around?

''Christ'' is the diety, and Jesus is the man. ''Christ'' is an expansion of God, and was manifested in the vessel known as Jesus, who was able to to carry out God's will. This can be understood better with the quote ''why have thou forsaken me''.

"The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word." - Hebrews 1:3

The exact representation of his being. Exact. Are you going to interpret it literally, or just screw around?

Yes it means he is the proper person to represent God, so anything he say's is to be taken as if it was said by God Himself. It would seem that not everyone ''believes'' that.

Guess where the very core of Christian theology comes from? The Bible! Imagine that! And now we've seen some of it, straight from the source

You currently don't appear to have any comprehension of the Bible, so for you it's all been darkness.
As for Christian theology, fine, if there comes a time when something need to be interpreted, or various secular ideas of what it could possibly mean, I'll consult it, other than that it's very simple (especially the bits we're concerned with) and not in need of interpretation from any academic group.

Religion is an entirely legitimate discussion point in a thread titled as this one happens to be. You can refuse to discuss it all you like, but it's not going away.

What you really mean is, you are only comfortable with the confusion of various religious ideas so you can hide behind the confusion. This way there is no confusion, only scripture. And all of a sudden your understanding is shown up against the source, naked for all to see.

Apparently it is quite difficult for you.

No. It's difficult for you.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wegs,

Thing is, something I've gleaned from all the exchanges with Jan, is that he seems to be ....at peace. With himself, with his faith. So, who are we to judge?

I'm not dealing with fuzzy warm little notions to make me feel more at peace with myself, I'm using the scriptures to explain why I think the way I do regarding the OP.

jan.

 

[Rav]

If one has the ability to be obedient to death, that means that one complies with the request, meaning death is powerless less it's permission has been granted.

And the permission was granted: "he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death". It's right there, in the text. It's exactly what the Bible is talking about when it states that Christ died for our sins. Biblically speaking, if there was no death, and no resurrection, there is no salvation.

If death was real, it would occur whether or not Jesus complied.

As established in my previous post, death is a physical death. And that's what God submitted to after he assumed human form.

Yes, but he clearly didn't die. Did he? Otherwise he would not have been seen post crucifixion, and his body would still have been in the tomb.

For crying out loud Jan. The entire New Testament is about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. If there was no death, there was no resurrection! That's the whole fucking miraculous thing that is being highlighted in the story. God, as a sinless man, submitted to death to pay the price for the sins of all humanity, but then rose again.

All this crap of yours about how the Bible doesn't really say that he died a physical death is utterly ridiculous. I mean according to the Bible everyone is going to be resurrected on the day of Judgment, so does that mean no-one ever dies a physical death? Of course it fucking doesn't.

The qu'ran compliments this by saying that he wasn't killed, that it made to look that way. If you don't accept that, fine, but that is what it says, and that is what I am presenting. You are presenting texts in a way that appeases your personal comprehension, and failing miserably.

More utter nonsense. My personal comprehension? What I am presenting here is the view held by the vast majority of both Christian and Muslim scholars, and believers in general. What you are presenting is an entirely nonsensical line of bullshit reasoning that completely contradicts your stated methodology for interpreting scripture. What you're also essentially doing is claiming that you are more of an authority on the interpretation of that scripture than the aforementioned respective majorities.

In other words, even though we are engaged on a particular discussion point right now, pretty much everything you do makes my case for me which is, in case you need reminding, the contention that not all theists agree with you about how God should be conceptualized. So, take a look everyone. Jan is effectively declaring that not only is he the ultimate arbiter of scriptural truth, but that the vast majority of Christians and Muslims aren't real theists (since by extension his criticism of me as a person who approaches scripture merely to appease my own personal whims, which is made on the grounds of how I am reading it, necessarily applies to anyone else who reads scripture in the same way).

The majority view here among Islamic scholars is that the person crucified wasn't really Jesus, but someone who looked like him (or simply a body that looked like his). To go along with the minority view you are trying to push here we have to pretend that it is legitimate to redefine words like "death" and "kill", mid-verse, and this is beyond absurd if the interpretation of scripture is supposed to be a straightforward affair as you insist that it is.

Will you stop being so stubborn. I'm not going along with any view be it popular or unpopular. The scriptures make a claim and I take it literally. Why bother try to work stuff out that you're/we're incapable of comprehending to it's fullness. If we don't like what the scriptures say, fine, we don't accept them. But to attempt to change them to suit the current fashion of the day is totally counterproductive.

Jesus told HIS people that through him they can know God, and can have everlasting life because at that moment in time, he was the light that illuminated the truth, and was therefore the way. That was his mission, and he proved to them that this was the case.

To everyone else it seemed like a mundane occurence: some guy running off his mouth claiming to be the son of God, the king of the jews, the guy who could perform magic tricks, and so on. So they acted out their comprehension of the situation, and Jesus' people acted out their comprehension.

Justify your mid-verse redefinition of terms please.

What was it that Thomas refused to believe? He refused to believe that unless he sees the inflicted wounds, he will not believe that the person claimed by Mary to be Jesus is actually Jesus.

Why did he think like this? Because he was trusting his eyes, trusting what he had seen. But we know that what most people had seen on that day, didn't really occur, it was made to look that way. So when Jesus appeared to him he believed that this was Jesus even though there were no injuries to his body.

He had no blemishes.

You want to interpret “Reach out your hand and put it into my side” as Jesus not offering to cater to his doubts?

Regardless, this point hardly matters as an unblemished apparition of Jesus hardly serves to undo the clear Biblical affirmation of his crucifixion, death and resurrection anyway.

It's not a theological position

The theological position I refer to is your statement that all scripture is the equally authoritative word of God, but only when interpreted literally, and that when interpreted literally, contradictions do not occur.

and it is not delusion

You are delusional because you are blind to the fact that instead of interpreting scripture literally (that is, taking the words in their most usual or basic sense, or at face value) you are talking around them, and redefining them, and "theorizing". Yet this is precisely what you have chastised the catholics for doing. And as if that wasn't absurd enough, you are essentially accusing the fundamentalists of taking things too literally.

you are chopping and changing what is actually said

Will the irony never end?™

to get the upperhand in this discussion

Just wait until we get to looking at Craig's biblical case for Christian particularism. What we're discussing now is easy for someone who claims to uphold biblical literalism to wiggle out of in comparison, not that you've even had any success so far anyway.

1. The text say's ''they imitate the saying of people who also didn't believe''. So yes there are people who make these claims but do not actually believe them (kind of like the theme of this thread). I've made this point loads of times, one is not a theist because one proclaims to be. To believe, one has to actually believe. The scene with Thomas explains that quite nicely.

More context, then:

The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him. - Quran 9:30-31

These verses clearly describe examples of inappropriate attributions of lordship, or divinity. And this straightforward no bullshit reading of the text is perfectly consistent with what pretty much the entire Islamic scholarship gleans from it, which is particularly relevant since many of them can study it in the original language.

Go. Read. Learn. Or remain committed to declaring yourself to be a greater scriptural authority than the countless Islamic scholars who disagree with you.

The Word ''became flesh'' not that the Word IS flesh. In the film, the Matrix, they were able to obtain a body made out of the matrix, and their actual self (avatar), and as such they were able to dwell among those who were unaware of their real position. As they became more knowledgable of their surroundings they were able to manipulate it more and more.

Oh, and now we need to reference the matrix to make sense of scripture!

This verse is simple. God became flesh. That flesh was Jesus. Jesus is therefore God manifest in human form. The Qur'an denies it. Islamic scholars agree. Simple.

''Christ'' is the diety, and Jesus is the man. ''Christ'' is an expansion of God, and was manifested in the vessel known as Jesus, who was able to to carry out God's will. This can be understood better with the quote ''why have thou forsaken me''.

Look at all the bullshit characterizations you are adding to scripture! The Bible doesn't say any of this shit. What it says is:

"in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"

If there was only one verse that characterized Jesus as equivalent to God, you might be able to make a case. But there's not. There's several. And you need to take them at face value otherwise you are violating your stated methodology.

Yes it means he is the proper person to represent God, so anything he say's is to be taken as if it was said by God Himself. It would seem that not everyone ''believes'' that.

It doesn't merely say that Jesus is the proper person to represent God. This is the bullshit you are bringing to the table. Take the scripture at face value. The Son is the exact representation of God's being. It's right there, in black and white.


And you ignored this one:

"But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom" - Hebrews 1:8

I even linked you to the whole Chapter. This is God, calling Jesus, God. Oddly self-referential, perhaps. But again, right there in black and white nonetheless, and I certainly don't see how it would be a problem for an omnipotent being to fill two roles simultaneously.

Address this please. I want to see what nonsense you have to come up with to avoid the obvious conclusion in this instance. Another movie, perhaps?

and not in need of interpretation from any academic group.

Actually my references to majority opinion among scholars and theologians simply serve to demonstrate what is and isn't likely to be the most straightforward and accurate interpretation.

Funny how you are coming out on the wrong side of that comparison every single time.

And all of a sudden your understanding is shown up against the source, naked for all to see.

To echo a previous sentiment, I'm content to simply rest on the merits of my case. It's hardly your evaluation that I care about. For me, the exercise has become all about having something for future reference. In that sense this thread has already served one important function in that it has exposed a bias you have always denied having. Namely? A prior investment in a particular conception of God that can't be separated from the creationist paradigm. It's hardly surprising of course, but it's a matter of record now. And as we proceed, so shall many other things become.

 

[Rav]

And this straightforward no bullshit reading of the text is perfectly consistent with what pretty much the entire Islamic scholarship gleans from it, which is particularly relevant since many of them can study it in the original language.

Speaking of translations of the original text:

"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain." - Qur'an 4:157 (Sahih International)

There. Linked you to the source too. Now let's watch you either explore the issue of the legitimacy of different translations (which is a horrible can of worms for someone who insists on upholding scriptural literalism), or explain how that doesn't mean that "another was made to resemble him to them". And make it consistent with your previous thoughts, somehow, since there is after all only one correct way to read, and glean the truth, from scripture.

 

[wegs]

wegs,



I'm not dealing with fuzzy warm little notions to make me feel more at peace with myself, I'm using the scriptures to explain why I think the way I do regarding the OP.

jan.

Never suggested otherwise. I'm not trying to debate you, Jan. I'm trying to understand you, just two people talking on here. I grew up reading/learning Scripture. I won’t get into the thick of it, because I’ve shared my views on evolution with you. That said, Jesus died a physical death. The Scriptures tell us this. Second, are you of the belief that God is triune? (Father, son, holy spirit) I ask, because how you describe Jesus in relation to God, is that of a part of him. So, I’m just wondering for my own curiosity, what you believe in that realm. I’m merely curious, is all, Jan. If you feel like sharing…

 

[Rav]

Thing is...why is it hard for any believer of God, christian or not...to believe that God is behind evolution?

As is becoming clear in this thread it all hinges on how one conceives of God.

Back when Isaac Newton first devised a mathematical framework to explain and predict the motion of the planets, he was troubled by the gravitational perturbations that resulted from them occasionally coming into close proximity with one another during their respective orbits. He was convinced that the cumulative effect of these perturbations should be throwing the solar system into disarray, and lacking a naturalistic explanation for why this wasn't happening, he invoked God as a sort of cosmic mechanic who periodically intervened to maintain the observed order.

“The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and hence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” - Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

For a person who is used to conceiving of God as an entity that actively guides the motion of the planets and other celestial bodies, the idea that there could be a naturalistic explanation for "this most beautiful system" would indeed seem like a diminishing of His sovereignty. But that's exactly what we eventually discovered. The sovereignty was actually just an illusion, or perhaps more accurately a projection. Nonetheless I would imagine that many theists back in those days would have defended that illusion vigorously, and faithfully.

History is replete with examples like this, some much more dramatic. God's "sovereignty" has diminished more and more as it has unfolded. Or has it? If we assume God does exist, how could his sovereignty be diminished at all? I don't see how it could be, and I certainly don't see how the mere state of human knowledge could have anything to do with it. No, the only sovereignty that can can be diminished is the sovereignty we falsely attribute to him, which is never real to begin with.

But what does sovereignty really mean anyway? Even if God leaves the universe to it's own naturalistic processes, aren't those processes still ultimately contingent upon his existence? I mean doesn't a creator God essentially fashion a universe out of his own energies and potencies anyway? And doesn't he have the power to intervene, in any way he sees fit, at any time? Since when is exercising power a prerequisite for wielding it? In other words, is God not necessarily sovereign over his creation regardless of how he has intended it to unfold? I'd say that it would be impossible to say no without implying that he's not really God.

 

[wegs]

As is becoming clear in this thread it all hinges on how one conceives of God.

Back when Isaac Newton first devised a mathematical framework to explain and predict the motion of the planets, he was troubled by the gravitational perturbations that resulted from them occasionally coming into close proximity with one another during their respective orbits. He was convinced that the cumulative effect of these perturbations should be throwing the solar system into disarray, and lacking a naturalistic explanation for why this wasn't happening, he invoked God as a sort of cosmic mechanic who periodically intervened to maintain the observed order.

“The six primary planets are revolved about the sun in circles concentric with the sun, and with motions directed towards the same parts, and almost in the same plane. Ten moons are revolved about the earth, Jupiter, and Saturn, in circles concentric with them, with the same direction of motion, and nearly in the planes of the orbits of those planets; but it is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions, since the comets range over all parts of the heavens in very eccentric orbits; for by that kind of motion they pass easily through the orbs of the planets, and with great rapidity; and in their aphelions, where they move the slowest, and are detained the longest, they recede to the greatest distances from each other, and hence suffer the least disturbance from their mutual attractions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” - Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy

well. we are in good company.

For a person who is used to conceiving of God as an entity that actively guides the motion of the planets and other celestial bodies, the idea that there could be a naturalistic explanation for "this most beautiful system" would indeed seem like a diminishing of His sovereignty. But that's exactly what we eventually discovered. The sovereignty was actually just an illusion, or perhaps more accurately a projection. Nonetheless I would imagine that many theists back in those days would have defended that illusion vigorously, and faithfully.

I don't know about that, Rav. Sovereignty is not a term confined to the 'divine.' It is merely a secular term that means supreme power, like governments, queens, etc...If we attach the word to God, and the Bible has...what exactly does it mean? It could mean, he has the power to create and destroy. It could mean he has the power to watch everything happen, and do nothing to change the natural course of events. It could mean he created a world, as is, and his sovereignty is just in the mere accepting of that 'fact.' (fact in quotes, because there is no scientific evidence for the existence of the supernatural) Has man stopped to just contemplate God, or has he tried to conjure up what he hopes God is?

True sovereignty means when mercy is seen as power. When I think of God...my mind's eye believes God to be all merciful. All encompassing. The moon, the stars, the planets. They all reflect him. Our humanity, and lack thereof, is a byproduct of evolution, and he created that, as well.
(to me)

History is replete with examples like this, some much more dramatic. God's "sovereignty" has diminished more and more as it has unfolded.

lol, it's funny, right? How can sovereignty ''diminish?'' You either rule supreme or you don't. If a CEO steps down in his company, he's no longer sovereign.

Or has it? If we assume God does exist, how could his sovereignty be diminished at all? I don't see how it could be, and I certainly don't see how the mere state of human knowledge could have anything to do with it. No, the only sovereignty that can can be diminished is the sovereignty we falsely attribute to him, which is never real to begin with.

Maybe. And/or ...maybe man applies his own thinking too much to it all. He tries to decipher something unfathomable.

But what does sovereignty really mean anyway? Even if God leaves the universe to it's own naturalistic processes, aren't those processes still ultimately contingent upon his existence? I mean doesn't a creator God essentially fashion a universe out of his own energies and potencies anyway? And doesn't he have the power to intervene, in any way he sees fit, at any time? Since when is exercising power a prerequisite for wielding it? In other words, is God not necessarily sovereign over his creation regardless of how he has intended it to unfold? I'd say that it would be impossible to say no without implying that he's not really God.

If one believes in God, (has faith)...that faith is positioned on believing God is 'in control.' Sovereign could be appropriately used for that. People often will think this means that a believer is somehow using God as a crutch. Or that by seeking a God through prayer, we somehow stop relying on ourselves. Some do think along those lines. That's true. I don't judge anyone's faith practices, unless it impacts others in a harmful or negative way. But, at the end of the day...if someone believes in God...if the thinking about it is healthy (although, people may find it logically irrational, mind you) ...then that person will have hope.

And...Hope can do a lot of good, you know.

Something to note. Faith doesn't require a lot of specificity. Do I need to have all the dots connected before I believe that there could be a God? No, I don't. But, some do. And that's what makes us different. Not one better than the other. Not one brighter than the other. Just different.

Rav, I want to ask you something, and I don't know if I've ever asked you this...or anyone here (who doesn't believe in God) this. But, you don't believe in God. What do you hope in? Where does your hope come from? I ask sincerely; I want to know. Believers in God are often asked about their 'beliefs,' just curious as to yours. What guides your life? What are your own principles that you live by?

 

[Rav]

Rav, I want to ask you something, and I don't know if I've ever asked you this...or anyone here (who doesn't believe in God) this. But, you don't believe in God. What do you hope in? Where does your hope come from? I ask sincerely; I want to know. Believers in God are often asked about their 'beliefs,' just curious as to yours. What guides your life? What are your own principles that you live by?

I'm only prepared to give you the broad strokes here, given the nature of this thread.

First, it's important to understand that not only is atheism a broad category, whether I call myself one or not depends on the particular conception of God that is on the table. And I'm not unique around here in that sense. Certainly I am atheistic with respect to the proposed existence of God as characterized by the Abrahamic religions (along with pretty much any conception of God that has been anthropomorphized to a similar degree), but if we're talking about God in a more abstract sense, the whole ballgame changes. Some people have a tendency to roll their eyes when you quote Einstein, since he gets quoted so often, but the man really speaks to me like few other people do:

"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." - Albert Einstein

Really, that's it in a nutshell. I certainly speculate beyond such limits occasionally, but that's where I too am grounded. And make no mistake, there is indeed spirituality to be found in the life of an atheist. The great mystery of existence is the object of my devotion, and the awe of wonder of nature is my inspiration. And although I do of course get caught up in the mundane as much as anyone else, I really mean what I am saying. There's a balance. Life, the universe and especially human existence seems miraculous to me. And if that's what we're calling God, then call me a devotee.

Of course some people find it offensive to talk about God in such a way. When it comes to alternative ideas about the true nature of reality, there is zero tolerance. Funny that.

But what about morality? Well to me that's really simple. Deriving a basis for morality simply from a consideration of who and what we are is trivially easy. The overwhelming majority of us want to live, and we don't want to suffer while we're doing it. Instead we want to be safe and free to carve out a pleasant existence for ourselves. So we should be striving to create a world in which it is possible for us to do that, so long as we do not impinge on the rights of others to do the same or negatively impact on the ability of society as a whole to foster such an environment. Yes, no moral or ethical system can ever be perfect when actual people are involved, and the finer points are situational, but there is indeed a legitimate basis here. If there wasn't then secularism would be failing. Yet it's not.

What guides my life? The desire to learn, and grow, and experience. To ponder, and to engage. To interact. To help. To see what's round the next corner. To roll around on the floor with our dog, and get my face licked, and laugh about it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Rav, I want to ask you something, and I don't know if I've ever asked you this...or anyone here (who doesn't believe in God) this. But, you don't believe in God. What do you hope in? Where does your hope come from? I ask sincerely; I want to know. Believers in God are often asked about their 'beliefs,' just curious as to yours. What guides your life? What are your own principles that you live by?

I am the product of over 3,500 millione years of evolution. I share the planet with relatives both close and distant. Some of those relatives inhabit my body - there are more bacterial cells in me than there are cells 'of my own'. As a consequence of these points I wish to ensure the ongoing survival of the biosphere and wish to maintain its diversity.

Evolution has led to me being a primate. These are skilled social animals. Humans in particular display a specialisation of high intelligence. Therefore I wish to use my intelligence to promote social harmony, develop technology that will support my other aims, and actively explore the nature of the world using my evolved curiosity.

I hope to do all of these things to the best of my ability.

This requires that I have respect for others, but intolerance of willlful ignorance and self delusion.

I am not an atheist, nor am I a theist. I am certainly not a believer in the Abrahamic God. That would just be silly.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

And the permission was granted: "he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death". It's right there, in the text. It's exactly what the Bible is talking about when it states that Christ died for our sins. Biblically speaking, if there was no death, and no resurrection, there is no salvation.

...

6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Here the speaker is citing Jesus as an example, despite being the same nature as God, he did not consider himself equal to God. With this same humility he took the nature of a servant and was made in human likeness. Not that he was forced to be born into a suitable body like the rest of us. Because he had assumed the appearance of a man (appearance, not that he was the same as an ordinary man), he became obedient to death.

The words in those verses suggest that this person Jesus was not an ordinary human being, but was made to look like one. Ordinarily when people are born, they have no idea of what happened before their earliest recollections sometime after birth. Jesus knew exactly where he was before he advented. He accepted the task.

As established in my previous post, death is a physical death. And that's what God submitted to after he assumed human form.

God isn't physical, and God cannot die (not that I agree that Jesus is God), so his death was not physical, which is why the qu'ran verse makes sense.

For crying out loud Jan. The entire New Testament is about the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. If there was no death, there was no resurrection! That's the whole fucking miraculous thing that is being highlighted in the story. God, as a sinless man, submitted to death to pay the price for the sins of all humanity, but then rose again.

The NT is about every aspect of the few years that it covers. Of course his arrival and departure are signigicant, but just as significant are his teachings, and his exemplary lifestyle.

All this crap of yours about how the Bible doesn't really say that he died a physical death is utterly ridiculous. I mean according to the Bible everyone is going to be resurrected on the day of Judgment, so does that mean no-one ever dies a physical death? Of course it fucking doesn't.

I didn't say that the bible doesn't really say that he died a physical death. The qur'an say's that. I said that he couldn't of died because he was seen after the event, but it could have appeared that he died. Either way he didn't die. End of.

We're human beings, our bodies are natural and therefore subject to the laws of nature. The bible states that Jesus accepted a human form, not that he was born the natural way. The bible also states that Jesus wasn't 'born' although it appeared to be what one would regard as a natural birth, so it is only logical to assume that he did not die, but as he appeared to have died, the qu'ran makes a good point.

More utter nonsense. My personal comprehension? What I am presenting here is the view held by the vast majority of both Christian and Muslim scholars, and believers in general.

.

So what? What makes you this is something that can be decided by scholars?
And what method do you and they use to come to the conclusion that Jesus died a physical death despite being seen after the event? And what method do you and they use to conclude that the passage in the qu'ran does not mean what it implies?

What you are presenting is an entirely nonsensical line of bullshit reasoning that completely contradicts your stated methodology for interpreting scripture.

You have no choice but to see it like that as you have nothing to contribute on account of not comprehending the essential nature of God and Jesus as depicted in every scripture. Your atheism is real, you have no belief in God, only in ideas that suit your whim.

What you're also essentially doing is claiming that you are more of an authority on the interpretation of that scripture than the aforementioned respective majorities.

This is your tactic. You are equivilent to a wounded animal still trying trick his defeator that he still has moves, and is still in control. Having realised that without the noise of religious institutional ideas, you are left with the stillness of the source, and your understanding is out in the open for everyone to see, and your foolish pride cannot accept a drop in what you percieve as your status. Consider your false status dropped.

In other words, even though we are engaged on a particular discussion point right now, pretty much everything you do makes my case for me which is, in case you need reminding, the contention that not all theists agree with you about how God should be conceptualized.

Can you tell if someone is a theist, given that people can say they believe, even believe that they believe, do not actually believe?
In fact let me just answer that question for you. You can't.
So you don't have an argument about anything, it only seems like you do.
All we have is real experience of God (like Jesus) or testimonies of people who have had a real experience (scriptures). The scriptures show that Jesus was not a physical being, that he was made in the image of one. The scriptures show that Jesus was seen after the event, so could not have died (even though it seemed like he did). The scripture shows that they killers thought they were killing Jesus, but in fact they weren't. It was made to look like that.

I didn't make this up, it's all in the scriptures. You're saying that Jesus was a physical being contradicting a verse you posted. You say that this non physical person died a physical death despite being seen after the event. Your argument is based on the Christian religion, namely that the NT is based on Jesus' birth and death, and his purpose was to die for our sins, not on what the document say's.

You are basically many different kinds of wrong.

So, take a look everyone. Jan is effectively declaring that not only is he the ultimate arbiter of scriptural truth, but that the vast majority of Christians and Muslims aren't real theists (since by extension his criticism of me as a person who approaches scripture merely to appease my own personal whims, which is made on the grounds of how I am reading it, necessarily applies to anyone else who reads scripture in the same way)

:roflmao:

Look everyone! Rav has sunk to an all time low.

You so desparately want to invoke religion don't you?
You're like a fish out of water.

Regardless, this point hardly matters as an unblemished apparition of Jesus hardly serves to undo the clear Biblical affirmation of his crucifixion, death and resurrection anyway.

You're incredibly dumb when it comes to using your common sense.
Who told you his appearance was an apparition? I don't recall this piece of information in any scripture.
Or is this more of your story making?

Do you agree that if God (as defined) wanted to make it appear as though Jesus was an ordinary man, and die like an ordinary man, to some people, it could occur? This is what it boils down to.

Just wait until we get to looking at Craig's biblical case for Christian particularism. What we're discussing now is easy for someone who claims to uphold biblical literalism to wiggle out of in comparison, not that you've even had any success so far anyway.

Not interested in specific religious ideologies, at least not for this topic anyways.
It's my thread and I specifically want to omit religion from the discussion. It serves no purpose in defining who and what God is, who and what we are in relation to God. The Christian religion sees Jesus in a certain way that does nothing to understand him as a person, who taught people about the subjects I mentioned.

I have to go now. Don't respond untill I have finished the responding to the rest.

jan.

 

[wegs]

@ Rav:

Rav, I just want to say one thing. You, are the real deal. I don’t know you, you don’t know me…but, from what you post, you are REAL.
At the end of the day, no matter what we believe…it is in our actions, that we make a positive or negative difference in this world.

Recently, I have had the misfortune (yet again) of meeting a ‘self proclaimed believer,’ who talks a good talk, but lies. Lies and lies and lies.

While I don’t judge, I will say that someone’s faith or religion will not guarantee him/her to become a better person. It’s just words…until those words meet actions. Positive ones.

Jesus said, ‘you’ll know them by their fruits.’ I happen to think, he meant… everyone…

This has nothing really to do with the thread topic, but just wanted to answer you directly.
You are a kind, real man. At least from where I sit…and I appreciate the discussion here.

Sorry Jan, if I veered off topic a bit.

 

[quinnsong]

I'm only prepared to give you the broad strokes here, given the nature of this thread.

First, it's important to understand that not only is atheism is broad category, whether I call myself one or not depends on the particular conception of God that is on the table. And I'm not unique around here in that sense. Certainly I am atheistic with respect to the proposed existence of God as characterized by the Abrahamic religions (along with pretty much any conception of God that has been anthropomorphized to a similar degree), but if we're talking about God in a more abstract sense, the whole ballgame changes. Some people have a tendency to roll their eyes when you quote Einstein, since he gets quoted so often, but the man really speaks to me like few other people do:

"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism." - Albert Einstein

Really, that's it in a nutshell. I certainly speculate beyond such limits occasionally, but that's where I too am grounded. And make no mistake, there is indeed spirituality to be found in the life of an atheist. The great mystery of existence is the object of my devotion, and the awe of wonder of nature is my inspiration. And although I do of course get caught up in the mundane as much as anyone else, I really mean what I am saying. There's a balance. Life, the universe and especially human existence seems miraculous to me. And if that's what we're calling God, then call me a devotee.

Of course some people find it offensive to talk about God in such a way. When it comes to alternative ideas about the true nature of reality, there is zero tolerance. Funny that.

But what about morality? Well to me that's really simple. Deriving a basis for morality simply from a consideration of who and what we are is trivially easy. The overwhelming majority of us want to live, and we don't want to suffer while we're doing it. Instead we want to be safe and free to carve out a pleasant existence for ourselves. So we should be striving to create a world in which it is possible for us to do that, so long as we do not impinge on the rights of others to do the same or negatively impact on the ability of society as a whole to foster such an environment. Yes, no moral or ethical system can ever be perfect when actual people are involved, and the finer points are situational, but there is indeed a legitimate basis here. If there wasn't then secularism would be failing. Yet it's not.

What guides my life? The desire to learn, and grow, and experience. To ponder, and to engage. To interact. To help. To see what's round the next corner. To roll around on the floor with our dog, and get my face licked, and laugh about it.

You must have got the same memo I did.

 

[Rav]

I have to go now. Don't respond untill I have finished the responding to the rest.

If you didn't want a response to half a post, you shouldn't have posted half a post. You should have waited until you had a whole post. You may have started this thread, but you don't own it. You don't even have control over it beyond what you could try to compel a moderator to do on your behalf.

Here the speaker is citing Jesus as an example, despite being the same nature as God, he did not consider himself equal to God. With this same humility he took the nature of a servant and was made in human likeness. Not that he was forced to be born into a suitable body like the rest of us. Because he had assumed the appearance of a man (appearance, not that he was the same as an ordinary man), he became obedient to death.

Sounds like you are agreeing that Jesus is "in very nature God". Let's look at some other translations:

"who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" - NKJV

"though he was in the form of God, he did not consider being equal with God something to exploit" - CEB

The words in those verses suggest that this person Jesus was not an ordinary human being, but was made to look like one. Ordinarily when people are born, they have no idea of what happened before their earliest recollections sometime after birth. Jesus knew exactly where he was before he advented. He accepted the task.

Your talking out of your arse again instead of reading the scripture as it is written. Jesus was in very nature God. He was in the form of God. And he did not consider that something to exploit.

Simple. Straightforward. At least for the person who isn't desperately trying to defend a ludicrous theological position that was clearly initially formed out of ignorance by constantly neglecting to adhere to his stated methodology regarding the interpretation of scripture.

It's not just reference to majority opinion among scholars, theologians and Christians in general that affirms the legitimacy of this as an accurate no-nonsense reading, it's also reference to alternative translations since they serve to narrow the interpretative scope. We will see more of this below.

God isn't physical, and God cannot die (not that I agree that Jesus is God), so his death was not physical, which is why the qu'ran verse makes sense.

Of course God cannot die. But physical bodies can obviously die. And that doesn't change just because God inhabits one, especially when he does nothing to prevent it (he made himself obedient to death of a cross, remember, which is a decidedly physical affair). And this has been established clearly, from scripture, several times.

The verse in question, again:

"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain." - Qur'an 4:157 (Sahih International)

As has also already established (although rejected by you on pathetically weak grounds of course, which is the theme of the day) the Jews believed in an afterlife, so they couldn't have been talking about anything other than a physical death. So again:

Jews: We killed his body
Qur'an: No you didn't. You didn't even put him on a cross. It was someone else.

Your initial interpretation (which is infallible, according to you) was: "a)His body was crucified, so it appeared to some people that he himself had been killed."

But here the Qur'an is clearly saying instead of crucifying him, another was made to resemble him. Looking forward to your elaboration on scripture, as always.

The NT is about every aspect of the few years that it covers. Of course his arrival and departure are signigicant, but just as significant are his teachings, and his exemplary lifestyle.

The NT is about exactly what I said it was about: the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Either way he didn't die. End of.

Jesus was resurrected. To resurrect is to "restore to life". Thus, tonights bible study topic will be, you guessed it, resurrection!

"Jesus replied, 'Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.'" - Matt 11:4-6

It seems that the dead can be raised, so I guess we can proceed.

"At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life." - Matt 27:51-52

"Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead." - John 12:1

Just wanted to double-check. Yup, we're definitely good to go!

"As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, 'Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.'" - Matt 17:9

Oooh. Looks like Jesus is going to be raised from the dead at some point too. It's the birth of a trend!

“We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!” - Matt 20:18-19

"And he said, 'The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.'" - Luke 9:22

Definitely, I'd say. But just for good measure:

"After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken." - John 2:22

"This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross." - Acts 2:23[/I]

"You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this." - Acts 3:15

And look, there's even a bonus in there too. One would think that the title "author of life" could only apply to God, But here it is being used to describe Jesus. Shocking huh! I wish that's what I had been saying the whole time, in unison with the rest of the Christian world.

Oh, and by the way, Jesus was raised from the dead (just in case that part wasn't clear).

We're human beings, our bodies are natural and therefore subject to the laws of nature. The bible states that Jesus accepted a human form, not that he was born the natural way. The bible also states that Jesus wasn't 'born' although it appeared to be what one would regard as a natural birth, so it is only logical to assume that he did not die, but as he appeared to have died, the qu'ran makes a good point.

All your comments are mere drivel at this point. Nothing new though.

So what? What makes you this is something that can be decided by scholars?

Like I already said: "my references to majority opinion among scholars and theologians simply serve to demonstrate what is and isn't likely to be the most straightforward and accurate interpretation.".

And what method do you and they use to come to the conclusion that Jesus died a physical death despite being seen after the event?

Mostly I think it's because the bible clearly says so (a concept you seem to be having substantial trouble with). That whole part about resurrection just above might give you a hint.

And what method do you and they use to conclude that the passage in the qu'ran does not mean what it implies?

Your stated methodology (as opposed to you actual methodology, which is substantially different). You know, take the words in their most basic sense, at face value. Simple.

You have no choice but to see it like that as you have nothing to contribute on account of not comprehending the essential nature of God and Jesus as depicted in every scripture.

Actually I don't give a fuck how a person chooses to interpret scripture. In fact earlier in this discussion I was getting right behind a different methodology. How did you miss that? All I am doing right now is exactly what I promised I would do if you chose to become a hypocritical dickhead, and that's to throw scriptural literalism right back in your face, with a vengeance. And you did. So I am. And that is what I am going to continue to do.

only in ideas that suit your whim.

Will the irony never end?™

This is your tactic. You are equivilent to a wounded animal still trying trick his defeator that he still has moves, and is still in control. Having realised that without the noise of religious institutional ideas, you are left with the stillness of the source, and your understanding is out in the open for everyone to see, and your foolish pride cannot accept a drop in what you percieve as your status. Consider your false status dropped.

Blah blah blah.

:yawn:

Can you tell if someone is a theist, given that people can say they believe, even believe that they believe, do not actually believe? In fact let me just answer that question for you. You can't.

I'll say it again: "Jan is effectively declaring that not only is he the ultimate arbiter of scriptural truth, but that the vast majority of Christians and Muslims aren't real theists (since by extension his criticism of me as a person who approaches scripture merely to appease my own personal whims, which is made on the grounds of how I am reading it, necessarily applies to anyone else who reads scripture in the same way)."

That's the problem here. You're basically trying to dictate who is and isn't a real theist depending on how they read scripture. And that is beyond arrogance. In fact that is so judgmental, and so intolerant, there's really no fucking word for it. And on this point, you're going down in flames.

The scriptures show that Jesus was not a physical being, that he was made in the image of one.

They show that God, who is not a physical being, assumed physical form, submitted that form to death on a cross, and then resurrected it.

The scriptures show that Jesus was seen after the event, so could not have died

Wrong. That's the whole point of resurrection, as shown further up.

The scripture shows that they killers thought they were killing Jesus, but in fact they weren't. It was made to look like that.

That's what the Qur'an says. The bible tells a different story.

You're saying that Jesus was a physical being contradicting a verse you posted.

Wrong. I am saying that God, who is an unphysical being, assumed a physical form.

You say that this non physical person died a physical death despite being seen after the event.

Wrong. I am saying that God, who is an unphysical being, assumed a physical form, made himself obedient to a physical death, and then essentially resurrected himself.

Your argument is based on the Christian religion, namely that the NT is based on Jesus' birth and death, and his purpose was to die for our sins, not on what the document say's.

Some time soon, then, I will concentrate specifically on the many verses that clearly state that he did indeed die for our sins. There's a lot of them.

You know it really would have done you a whole lot of good to have actually bothered to read the NT before you started crapping on about it.

Look everyone! Rav has sunk to an all time low.

You so desparately want to invoke religion don't you?
You're like a fish out of water.

A rather transparent projection there.

You're incredibly dumb when it comes to using your common sense.
Who told you his appearance was an apparition? I don't recall this piece of information in any scripture.
Or is this more of your story making?

I meant the word in following sense: "The appearance of something remarkable or unexpected". Look it up. He was after all "appearing" to many people and freaking them right the fuck out. Apparently.

Do you agree that if God (as defined) wanted to make it appear as though Jesus was an ordinary man, and die like an ordinary man, to some people, it could occur? This is what it boils down to.

An omnipotent God could do anything. But what this actually boils down to is what becomes apparent from a literal reading of scripture. Thus your extracurricular "theories" are of no consequence (just as you say that those of the catholics are).

Not interested in specific religious ideologies, at least not for this topic anyways.

The case for Christian exclusivism is easy to make scripturally. Craig tackles it both scripturally and philosophically in his many articles on the topic. But if you're permitting us to interpret scripture literally, the job is easy. And we'll get to it eventually, as long as you refuse to give the catholics a break by remaining committed to your current stance anyway.

It's my thread and I specifically want to omit religion from the discussion.

It's not really your thread, as described at the beginning of this post. I would be willing to respect reasonable requests of course, but given the topic, your request is not actually reasonable. It's simply an attempt by you to try to restrict the number of ways in which your position can be challenged.

 

[Rav]

@ Rav:

Rav, I just want to say one thing. You, are the real deal. I don’t know you, you don’t know me…but, from what you post, you are REAL.
At the end of the day, no matter what we believe…it is in our actions, that we make a positive or negative difference in this world.

Recently, I have had the misfortune (yet again) of meeting a ‘self proclaimed believer,’ who talks a good talk, but lies. Lies and lies and lies.

While I don’t judge, I will say that someone’s faith or religion will not guarantee him/her to become a better person. It’s just words…until those words meet actions. Positive ones.

Jesus said, ‘you’ll know them by their fruits.’ I happen to think, he meant… everyone…

This has nothing really to do with the thread topic, but just wanted to answer you directly.
You are a kind, real man. At least from where I sit…and I appreciate the discussion here.

Sorry Jan, if I veered off topic a bit.

You're far far too nice, but I appreciate the kind words nonetheless. We don't see people praising each other much around here. It's more like an epic battleground with limbs flying left right and center, and I spend most of my time here right in the thick of it. But like I've said before, you really are like the sunshine. A rare jewel in terms of your humility, open-mindedness and just the general manner in which you choose to interact with everyone. So, thank you

 

[spidergoat]

...or anyone here (who doesn't believe in God) this. But, you don't believe in God. What do you hope in? Where does your hope come from? I ask sincerely; I want to know. Believers in God are often asked about their 'beliefs,' just curious as to yours. What guides your life? What are your own principles that you live by?

Principles, beliefs, and hope are unnecessary. They only cause problems. You don't see animals caring about these things, they interfere with the natural functioning of the body. The expectation that we need to hope for something in the future is what creates hopelessness in the present. I say chuck it all out the window.