My unanswered questions about Christ

It's like being omniscient without actually being omniscient. Does God actually know the number of hairs on my head and everyone elses? No. But he can look it up.
Click to expand...

Lol that's just funny. What has he got a laptop with godwiki on it? His broadband connection must be awesome.. :bugeye:

Where did you get the impression that belief or non-belief has to play into it?
Click to expand...

From you. You mentioned that faith is needed because people act on their best behaviour when the teacher is in the classroom but when he leaves they shoot spitballs at each other. I explained to you that knowledge or belief in this matter do not differ. The child in the classroom will act on his best behaviour if he knows the teacher is in the classroom or if he believes the teacher is in the classroom. Thus the 'test' will not work any better with faith than having knowledge of that entity. The only proper data this god would get in his test would come from those that don't believe he is in the classroom. If these people act on their best behaviour it isn't because they know or believe he is watching, it is because they are decent people. Those with faith do not fall into that category.
 
Myles said:
Your arrogance is astounding . " Reading comprehension............."
Click to expand...

I do try.
You know what they say. "When-in-Rome..."

Would you care to back up that ridiculous statement with some evidence. Of course you are not perplexed. People who believe the Bible are in no danger of becoming perplexed; that only happens when one thinks critically about what one is reading.
Click to expand...

Lets' backup and talk about "backing up" ridiculous statements...
You first. How many ways from stupid and ridiculous was your reply that he was illiterate?

Stupid and ridiculous don't even begin to give you a benefit of a doubt so how bout..ignorant? You obvioiusly didn't know...But ignorant doesn't begin to describe your attitude toward learning or openess to correction. So how bout... "Firmly resolved or determined toward nescience."

Heres the bad news as I write out your "reality check". Theres no expiration date, Myles. And it's a blank check. A smart man given a blank check would not hesitate to cash it out. A reasonable man would ask why, a Thoughful man limits how much he takes. But...the stupid man losses it.

The relation is... you lost the point. You were wrong. You jumped to a ridiculous conclusion not knowing or caring about the facts. You did it for hates sake, for cool points, cheap thrills, mimicry or any of a dozen socially acceptable hazing techniques you've found and refined here on Sci Forum and other on-line engagements and then employed a rueful overused rookie college technique of argument analysis to evade your own disingenuous and inept riposte.

It is your modus operendi. Before your so called "argument" can be approached your attitude must be corrected first. Stop hosing down the forum with your pedantic collection of incongruous theories and then...only then you might get some where truely meaningful.
 
Last edited:
Waiting for feedback by somebody over the age of fifteen whose well-read and has common sense....
Click to expand...

Wait.. you claim that god is not omniscient but can "look the answers up" and then moan that you want someone that's well-read and has common sense? :bugeye:

Admittedly my first response was in jest, but I do not think saying "godwiki" would imply that I am not well-read or lack common sense. I do notice however that you couldn't seemingly comment on the second part which is a very pertinent point.
 
Saquist said:
I do try.
You know what they say. "When-in-Rome..."



Lets' backup and talk about "backing up" ridiculous statements...
You first. How many ways from stupid and ridiculous was your reply that he was illiterate?

Stupid and ridiculous don't even begin to give you a benefit of a doubt so how bout..ignorant? You obvioiusly didn't know...But ignorant doesn't begin to describe your attitude toward learning or openess to correction. So how bout... "Firmly resolved or determined toward nescience."

Heres the bad news as I write out your "reality check". Theres no expiration date, Myles. And it's a blank check. A smart man given a blank check would not hesitate to cash it out. A reasonable man would ask why, a Thoughful man limits how much he takes. But...the stupid man losses it.

The relation is... you lost the point. You were wrong. You jumped to a ridiculous conclusion not knowing or caring about the facts. You did it for hates sake, for cool points, cheap thrills, mimicry or any of a dozen socially acceptable hazing techniques you've found and refined here on Sci Forum and other on-line engagements and then employed a rueful overused rookie college technique of argument analysis to evade your own disingenuous and inept riposte.

It is your modus operendi. Before your so called "argument" can be approached your attitude must be corrected first. Stop hosing down the forum with your pedantic collection of incongruous theories and then...only then you might get some where truely meaningful.
Click to expand...

Nice try but it won't wash. Read what you wrote and see how desperate you are becoming to defend the indefensible. Confuse the issue by using ad homs without answering the question you were asked in the first place.

As to my incongruos theories, I should like you to mention a few. We can then discuss them AFTER you have answered my question. Put up or shut up

So, what evidence have you to support you assertion about science, reading comprehension and interpretation. Answer that and we'll take it from there
 
Last edited:
Oh how...quaint a response.
Perhaps this apparent indefensive position of yours is the reason you decline Private Message discussion. I DO understand now...rest assured for your sake I'll hold back from now on, Myles.

Two syallable words and below, I promise.
I'll only engage your intellect as far as you engage mine. You offer "evidence" and I will offer you evidence. But you will not be making demands of me, silence or otherwise. I don't find it within your writhing intelligence to "put up" anything. And it amuses me endlessly that you challenge me with your cute "spork" and "sippy cup" combination of dares.

As usual Myles it was less than stimulating.
Rant on my Dear Myles rant on.

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. My Dear Holmes

Your First mistake was to theorize
Your second mistake was to challenge me.
Your third mistake was not learning from your first two errors.

For everyone else:

Would you be afraid to sleep in the same room with a lunatic, a man with softening of the brain, an idiot whose mind has lost its grip? -Sir Arthur C. Doyle ~Sherlock Holmes

Fictional but true...don't you agree. Myles...think first...talk when you learn how.
 
Last edited:
Bill Seper said:
Waiting for feedback by somebody over the age of fifteen whose well-read and has common sense....
Click to expand...
losing the battle, mate.
you should have realised that, you would hit walls of reason, when you came to this "Science forum".
 
Saquist said:
Oh how...quaint a response.
Perhaps this apparent indefensive position of yours is the reason you decline Private Message discussion. I DO understand now...rest assured for your sake I'll hold back from now on, Myles.

Two syallable words and below, I promise.
I'll only engage your intellect as far as you engage mine. You offer "evidence" and I will offer you evidence. But you will not be making demands of me, silence or otherwise. I don't find it within your writhing intelligence to "put up" anything. And it amuses me endlessly that you challenge me with your cute "spork" and "sippy cup" combination of dares.

As usual Myles it was less than stimulating.
Rant on my Dear Myles rant on.

It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. My Dear Holmes

Your First mistake was to theorize
Your second mistake was to challenge me.
Your third mistake was not learning from your first two errors.

For everyone else:

Would you be afraid to sleep in the same room with a lunatic, a man with softening of the brain, an idiot whose mind has lost its grip? -Sir Arthur C. Doyle ~Sherlock Holmes

Fictional but true...don't you agree. Myles...think first...talk when you learn how.
Click to expand...

You have not answered the question but instead of admitting you were wrong, you resort to personal abuse. Your comment on science, reading, comprehension and interpretation is nonsense. It was the best you could think of at the time but you have been unable to support it.

Thank you for pointing out my mistakes. My biggest mistake was to ask you a couple of questions, neither of which you have answered; I should have known you would evade the issue.

Your Sherlock Holmes quotation puts you beyond the pale but I shall not join you in the gutter. I'm sure everyone else will be glad to read it and know better than to argue with you, lest they be accused in the same manner for failing to agree with you.

The problem you have with me is that in the normal course of events you can say anything you want and quote the Bible to support it. Then you can find another quotation to support the first one and so on. I rely on reason. Rote learning is not my forte.

As to the unsolicited pm you sent me asking whether I needed help. I regarded it as an effort to proselytize behind the scenes, which is why I ignored it. It was also an attempt on your part to avoid a debate in public for reasons which will be clear to anyone who reads our correspondence .

We clearly have nothing further to say to each other but let the record show that you failed to provide an answer as to why Jesus failed to write down his teachings. You just waffled about oral traditions, when any informed person knows that knowledge commited to writing is invariably more accurate. Shall we burn all our books after we have commited them to memory ? Perhaps we could start with The Origin of Species.


You also made a stupid statement about scienctists having fallen into the trap of reading for interpretation rather than comprehension. You have had two opportunities to support that statement with evidence but you have failed to do so. You deliberately let an opportunity go by to show me the error of my ways. Perhaps you would care to give others on here the benefit of your unique insight, so scientists can learn to read as a Christian would. Then they will undestand why Darwin was a creationist.
 
Last edited:
Myles said:
How do you know that what you are saying is true ? Is it not a questrion of attempting to fill a gap with an explanation of your own devising ?

So why was the OT written ? Were people more literate in those times ?

Jesus could have written his teachings and passed them on to his apostles for reading to the iliterate but, more importantly, to ensure that his teaching did not become corrupt with the passage of time. As it is . we have hundreds of "Christian" sects whose differences are based on interpretations of the Bible. Surely god could have done a better job.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting the oral tradition. Illiterate people memorized stories line by line instead of writing them down. Jesus was also part of that oral tradition. You are criticizing the ancients for not living up to your modern standards. The standards were different back then. That's how I know.
 
Why? said:
You are forgetting the oral tradition. Illiterate people memorized stories line by line instead of writing them down. Jesus was also part of that oral tradition. You are criticizing the ancients for not living up to your modern standards. The standards were different back then. That's how I know.
Click to expand...
-Again, this apply my Holy Book Kalevala too, Wäinämöinen conquered the death and did bring the light (The Sampo/The Sun, was in uderworld/hell/tuonela 3 days :D) back to the world.
-So once again I ask you, why should I take a Jesus as God, and not Väinämöinen ?
 
Why? said:
You are forgetting the oral tradition. Illiterate people memorized stories line by line instead of writing them down.
Click to expand...
absolute rubbish, nothing was memorized that way, your version of "Snow White" wont be exactly the same as mine, people exaggerate, romanticize, fabricate, distort, embroider, expand, etc... The game Chinese Whispers proves that.
And that is all religion is a huge game of Chinese Whispers.
 
Why? said:
You are forgetting the oral tradition. Illiterate people memorized stories line by line instead of writing them down. Jesus was also part of that oral tradition. You are criticizing the ancients for not living up to your modern standards. The standards were different back then. That's how I know.
Click to expand...

Think about what you have said which boils down to this . The OT, which preceded the NT was written down. Does that mean there was no oral tradition ? Later, Jesus was part of an oral tradition which is why nothing was written. But Jesus is said to have read in the temple. Does that make sense ? I think not.
 
BlueMoose said:
-Again, this apply my Holy Book Kalevala too, Wäinämöinen conquered the death and did bring the light (The Sampo/The Sun, was in uderworld/hell/tuonela 3 days :D) back to the world.
-So once again I ask you, why should I take a Jesus as God, and not Väinämöinen ?
Click to expand...

Because Sibelius says so
 
Myles said:
Because Sibelius says so
Click to expand...
-You mean this man...and no, its not because of him.


Johan Julius Christian "Jean" / "Janne" Sibelius (pronunciation (help·info); December 8, 1865, Hämeenlinna, Finland – September 20, 1957, Järvenpää, Finland) was a Finnish composer of classical music and one of the most notable composers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. His music played an important role in the formation of the Finnish national identity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Sibelius
Bild.jpg

-Yes, He was inspired by our Gods too...

...The compiler of Kalevala is...
150px-Lonnrot2.jpg

"The first version of Lönnrot's compilation, Kalewala, taikka Wanhoja Karjalan Runoja Suomen Kansan muinoisista ajoista (The Kalevala, or old Karelian poems about ancient times of the Finnish people), also known as simply the Old Kalevala, came out in two volumes in 1835–1836. The Old Kalevala consisted of 12,078 verses or thirty-two poems.

Lönnrot continued to collect new material, which he integrated into a second edition, Kalevala (the Kalevala), published in 1849. This "new Kalevala" contains fifty poems, and is the standard text of the Kalevala read today."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Lönnrot

-Our Apostle...

And now, Kalevala of the Day !

"Hyvä on Sampuen hyrätä, kirjokannen kahnatella,
Pohjolan kivimäessä, vaaran vaskisen sisässä,
Hyvä olla itseniki Sammon suuren haltijana"

Vaka vanha Väinämöinen sanan virkkoi, noin nimesi:
"Kun et antane osoa, tuota Sammon toista puolta,
niin on me kaiken kantanamme, vienemme venehesemme."

"Its good to Sampo to spin, the spectrum-cover to hang on,
In Pohjolas stonehill, inside copper mountain,
And its good for me too to own the great Sampo."

Solid old Väinämöinen spoke a word, to tell:
"Cause you dont give a part of it, the other half of Sampo,
so be that we are carrying all of it, to our boat."

-Louhi Pohjan-Akka and Wäinämöinen arguing about the Sampo/The Sun

-Wäinämöinen and Louhi battling at the sea, painting by Akseli Gallen-Kallela,
The Defence of Sampo.
240px-Gallen-Kallela_The_defence_of_the_Sampo.png

"Akseli Gallen-Kallela (April 26, 1865 – March 7, 1931) was a Finnish painter who is best known for his illustrations of the Kalevala, the Finnish national epic (illustration, below). His work was considered very important for the Finnish national identity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akseli_Gallen-Kallela
 
Last edited by a moderator:
geeser said:
absolute rubbish, nothing was memorized that way, your version of "Snow White" wont be exactly the same as mine, people exaggerate, romanticize, fabricate, distort, embroider, expand, etc... The game Chinese Whispers proves that.
And that is all religion is a huge game of Chinese Whispers.
Click to expand...

Do you realize that Homer's Illiad was passed down for centuries by bards solely in their heads? You greatly underestimate the oral tradition.
 
Myles said:
Think about what you have said which boils down to this . The OT, which preceded the NT was written down. Does that mean there was no oral tradition ? Later, Jesus was part of an oral tradition which is why nothing was written. But Jesus is said to have read in the temple. Does that make sense ? I think not.
Click to expand...

The OT was eventually written down just like the NT. Does this finally make sense to you?
 
BlueMoose said:
-Again, this apply my Holy Book Kalevala too, Wäinämöinen conquered the death and did bring the light (The Sampo/The Sun, was in uderworld/hell/tuonela 3 days :D) back to the world.
-So once again I ask you, why should I take a Jesus as God, and not Väinämöinen ?
Click to expand...

Easy. Väinämöinen never actually lived. But, Jesus did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top