Jesus

[timothy42b]

are you really abandoned if your parents look away for a moment (when you're a child) and then are with you for your entire life?  it's about discipline and that Christ took our sins (and God wouldn't look at sin and say 'oh yeah, this looks good.')  He was proving a point - but the point wasn't that He abandoned Christ forever or even to the grave.  He is with us, similarly.  'I will be with you to the end...'  also, his peace is with us forever.

That's certainly a reasonable interpretation, and I generally go along with reasonableness.  Although I think you must admit it is somewhat contrary to what the plain wording says. 

It requires Jesus to be mistaken, and you have argued this is impossible in other threads about demons.  Yet at some point we have to remember none of the gospel writers were eye witnesses, so it may not be profitable to split hairs on wording.

The Christologists do however.  (see Moltman, "The Crucified God.")  They see a conflict between fulfilling the law through sacrifice, being subject to the law, and triumphing over the law through resurrection. 

Does it matter?  No, if your religion is solely a feeling one.  Yes, if you are also a thinker. 

[timothy42b]

Many of you are basing your entire arguments on quotes from the Bible. You cannot really do this since the English Bible is a translation. I doubt any of you have read the original greek and hebrew texts.

This is quite correct.  Although this section was written in Greek and the words are understandable, we are taking it out of context and in particular ignoring midrash.  The use of Psalm quotes is a message that it MUST be understood in terms of midrash. 

[pianistimo]

there is little need to get the simpleness of the gospel from the septuigent.  i used to try to scholarly research - but there is little point since the early fathers already did that.  with the exception of a few changes (which are noted in some bibles as footnotes on the page) the translation is good with king james and my pref. 'american standard version.'  you can buy it with large letters so you don't have to bring the bible to your eyes and squint.  what i read is the 'basics.'  love your neighbor - do unto others as they would do to you - follow Christ's example of service.' 

if i'm really wondering about a question - i'm more likely to compare translations than go to the greek for word by word translation.  suppose it would be interesting - but i haven't got the time right now.

the level of biblical reading is really surprising here, though - as i expected few people to respond to these threads.  it's nice to converse and agree to disagree on some things.

[timothy42b]

Septuagint is OT only though.  And almah vs parthenos caused a lot of trouble. 

Here's a problem, subject of many learned books, but it might not have occurred to you.

Jesus died on the cross.  Assume he was wholly God and wholly man.  (Yes, I know Mark thought Jesus was only man until baptism, and Paul thought he became divine only at resurrection.  Ignore minor quibles.)  Now assume a modern concept of the Trinity as worked out by Athanasius.  Doesn't that require God the Father to have died simultaneously?  Normally Immortals can't die at all, but isn't the text pretty clear it happened? 

[pianistimo]

i believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.  Otherwise, you're right.  why would Christ have bothered with baptism?  He was giving us an example - even though the Father was with Him and they had a close relationship.  And, as you say - if Christ and God 'died' as men at the same time - then who would be left to perform the ressurrection of the dead? 

had to call and ask my husband about the septuagint.  i always thought greek meant greek and if you looked up a word it would mean the same in old testament and new.  he says context does change and that many people use other translation helps for the new testament.  ok. so i'm a lazy scholar of the new testament.  i just look up the greek word in the septuagint to get the generalized meaning as i thought it was pretty much similar.

suppose you may be right about what each of the disciples really believed in their hearts until the actual ressurrection.  doubting thomas obviously doubted until he saw and touched the wounds. 

in terms of the idea of rulership - it is only in recent times that we distinguish the freedom of man from God, in our understanding.  and, yet we still have kings and queens in certain countries.  the idea of appointed rulership by God started with king David in the bible - and has continued today.  geneologist could point to the davidic line - which is prophecied to continue until the return of Christ.  divinely authored 'royalty' is a moot point today - as His kingdom is not of this world.  guess what i'm getting at - is there are many sceptics of the bible - but many things that point to unexplainable truths (if they are not accepted on faith). 

was listening to the coronation anthem of handel that was written for King George (don't remember the number - but lived during handel's time).  this music directly quotes the bible and certain passages having to do with justice and mercy and directing one's right hand (out of psalms).  the stone of destiny was supposedly carried by jeremiah from babylon? to britain and was placed under the coronation chair.  the bible has always been a cornerstone of ephraim and manassah (the sons of jacob) and the early music of england is based upon many biblical and historical elements.  not sure where the crown originated - but am sure it's very old, too.  as well as the scepter. 

the hebrew word 'berith' means 'covenant'  and 'ish' means man = british =covenant man

if you drop the 'i' from issac = saxons or sons of issac

i've read elsewhere that the other tribes of israel are in actuality nations (just as God promised to Abraham - that he would be the father of MANY nations).

dan = danites or danish   also - sons of dan could be irish (oh, danny boy) dan's mark =denmark

jeremiah was supposed to have brought a jewish princess (tea-tephi) to ireland and supposedly she married the son of the King of Ireland shortly after 585.  tea-tephi and her 12 year old son brought with them to ireland: harp, ark, stone of destiny.  herrimon was the king's name i believe.  anyway, i can't remember where i found this info and am just mentioning it because i have been more curious about history than sometimes biblical theology.  i learned that these royal relics from ireland were overturned to scotland and then overturned to england.  the crown has 12 points for the 12 tribes of israel.



 

[pianistimo]

it is thought that the arab nations have descended from ishmael (a son of abraham) and also fathered many nations.

reuben, gad, asher, naphtali, ... all these are definiate coutries descended from jacob.  there's a book written about their geneology somewhere and i tend to believe this.  it would make sense as every word of God is true and abraham was given a promise.  also, the covenant was carried out and said to be carried until the return of Christ.

this concept is very unfamiliar to most people and laughed at by others - but still 'nations' must be somewhere for the bible to be correct.  which nations are which is probably a matter for scholars as well.  not that it matters so much right now - as all are grafted into israel if they are not already.  the God of israel is the true God and the only Savior.  muhammad is not returning to save us.

[cfortunato]

the hebrew word 'berith' means 'covenant'  and 'ish' means man = british =covenant man

if you drop the 'i' from issac = saxons or sons of issac

i've read elsewhere that the other tribes of israel are in actuality nations (just as God promised to Abraham - that he would be the father of MANY nations).

dan = danites or danish   also - sons of dan could be irish (oh, danny boy) dan's mark =denmark

Pianistimo, Anglo-Israelism has been long discredited.  The stuff you are doing isn't linguistics: it's sound-alikes, and no actual linguist lends it an ounce of creedence.  "Isaac's Son" in Hebrew would be "Ben Yishuak" which doesn't sound a thing like "Saxon."

[pianistimo]

in 2007 a lot of dna testing is going to be done.  already it has been proven that sephardic jews are 40% lineage from the line of aaron (priests of temple) and ashkenazik 60%.  the bible, to be accurate, must be true in the area of prophecy.  if the prophecy that abraham would be the father of many nations it wouldn't just be the jewish one.  there is only one nation israel.  there are many nations that descended from other tribes than judah.  judah's line extended to britan when zarah and pharez (?) went there and also at the time jeremiah went (bringing tea-tephi), and i've read that many of the kingly line have traditions that coronate them on the stone of destiny (or jacob's pillar stone).  it has circular pole holders build in (probably for transport) and was used in the temple at jerusalem before being transported elsewhere.  it currently resides in scotland (again after many years till 1996 under the coronation chair in england).  it was said that the kingdom would be overturned three times - ireland, scotland, england were the three.

if every word of God is true - then biblical prophecy would be somewhat easier to understand and read. 

i will be interested to see what the dna project comes up with.  seems that geneology is  difficult sometimes with names being several or spelled differently.  anyone who is a geneologist will tell you that following anyone's family line - there will be different spellings along the way.

not trying to cram my beliefs down anyone's throat.  just food for thought.  i think that israel was dispursed into all reaches of the world so that all would hear the message of God.  even our coinage and heralds display manassah's heraldry (olive branch and arrows).  the 'lion' of judah is displayed on britan's.  and the scarlet is a color that was and is used to represent royalty - and was a color used in the temple.  jer 33:17 states that the line of david would not lack a man to sit on the throne of david forever.

[contrapunctus]

Septuagint is OT only though.  And almah vs parthenos caused a lot of trouble. 

Here's a problem, subject of many learned books, but it might not have occurred to you.

Jesus died on the cross.  Assume he was wholly God and wholly man.  (Yes, I know Mark thought Jesus was only man until baptism, and Paul thought he became divine only at resurrection.  Ignore minor quibles.)  Now assume a modern concept of the Trinity as worked out by Athanasius.  Doesn't that require God the Father to have died simultaneously?  Normally Immortals can't die at all, but isn't the text pretty clear it happened? 

Jesus is both fully human and divine. His human self died on the cross, but his divine self did not. Therefore, God never died. That is easy enough.

[pianistimo]

yet his body was never found.  explain that!  the tomb being empty amazed everyone and it was not before three days and nights as He Himself prophecied.  in the tomb, dead.  and to be raised after three days and nights.  sometime at the ninth hour (as that is when he died - he was raised).  there was a great earthquake (enough to roll away the stone) and his body was not there.  it was witnessed by many.  also, he allowed doubting thomas to feel his ressurrected body - with the wounds in the hands and piercing in the side.  in john 20:17 he says '...I have not yet ascended to the Father...'  this would mean that he was not ascended yet and was not 'with' the Father until He was fully ascended.

suppose you may be right about His divinity never really being threatened.  Satan told him to throw himself down because the angels would catch Him - and yet He still did not tempt God the Father by doing so (even though He knew they would).  He endured the punishment of the world's sin - and yet was ressurrected from eternity to eternity.  in one moment (of death) the world was born again to life without sin.  we can't fathom infiniteness and try to confine death as a finality.  His was not even physical finality - because His body was ressurrected.

[timothy42b]

Jesus is both fully human and divine. His human self died on the cross, but his divine self did not. Therefore, God never died. That is easy enough.

It is not easy at all.

No death, no sacrifice.  No sacrifice, no salvation.  So there must have been death.  Unless mere human sacrifice is sufficient, and that doesn't fit with anybody's theology. 

Besides, it says He died. 

[tryer]

He was some sort of con artist who could magic things out of thin air (compare Daren Brown}who does the same sort thing which all got out of hand.

Tryer

[thalbergmad]

yet his body was never found.  explain that! . 

Er, perhaps because he did not die.

[cfortunato]

Er, perhaps because he did not die.

Orthodox Christianity states that he certainly DID die, but rose.

[thalbergmad]

Orthodox Christianity states that he certainly DID die, but rose.

Is it true that this is not mentioned in all of the Gospels??

[pianistimo]

?  the scripture that comes to mind is the description of most everyone's physical death  john 19:33 (their last breath - and then the agreement of all around that they are really dead). Jesus legs were not broken because it was agreed that He was dead.  also, in luke 23:46 He 'cried out'..."Father, into your hands I commit my Spirit."  why would He commit His Spirit to God if He wasn't willing to die?  then, it says 'He breathed his last.'

maybe what you mean is that you don't understand how different people see different things from the bible.  some believe it as not only historically correct, but spiritually guiding and inerrant.  some see it just as history.  some see it as fables and tales.  some see it as errant and not worth reading.  so, it's really a perspective that colors how you read the bible.

for me, i combine things that happen in my own life (witnessed) and things that i take on faith (faith).  doubting thomas was not scolded terribly.  in fact, he remained a disciple even when he had to see with his own eyes.  Jesus must have known that there are many 'scientific' minds amongst us - and that they need more 'proof' of existence than the heavens and the earth and life being only found on earth right now.  as i see it - some of us need comfort from the stresses (because even if we believe, we wonder why God allows life to be so stressful sometimes).  we want to believe He is merciful and loving - but we have to experience it sometimes to fully believe.  often, it is AFTER a trial (which tests our faith).

in my case, lately, it was 'why did I have to break a leg?'  i struggled with that for a day and figured that it could have been worse.  maybe two legs.  or, my neck.  as far as accidents go - it could have been much worse and probably was not undeserved from my stupidity of climbing up a rope thingy at a children's playground to 'rescue' my daughter who could have climbed down.  well, that wasn't the end of my 'trial.'  i went to the hospital and thought it would be casted right away.  (happend on monday).  i was casted on wednesday.  tuesday night, the doctor came in and said he had a full day of patients with broken bones and i needed to wait until early the next morning.  what could i do?  that was another test.  would i curse the doctor?  not to mention if i did- i might get bad treatment my first thought was 'what would JesusChrist do?'  He would have faith that the length of time would not impact the healing since God is a healer.  as soon as i thought this thought, i told the doctor that i understood and was appreciative that he was taking me first thing in the morning.  i told him after a full day of surgery - he probably needed some rest.  but, my faith wavered during the night.  i had been in extreme pain for a long time and the pain killers don't work - but the pain sort of numbs itself until you move.  i was about to cry at one point during the night when two people came in to visit my 'roomie' who was recovering from knee surgery.  they came and talked and then prayed over her.  i was listening and said amen.  then, as they were leaving they asked if they could pray for me.  of course, i wasn't going to say 'no.'  so they prayed that the bones would heal well, straight, and be stronger than before.  this reassured me that God cared enough to have someone pray over me at this point.  surprisingly, the next night, after i had a closed reduction (doctor pushed the bones together without cutting) - in the middle of the night i felt like a hand right over my leg sort of pushing or warming my leg.  the pressure wasn't like a slight pressure - but actually like a hand on my leg.  don't usually tell people things like this - but it is true to me and makes me believe that God heals when you believe that He can.  my leg had an x-ray several times and the bones healed together extremely straight which is amazing, too, because the bone of the tibia was broken exactly in the middle - and the fibula was broken slightly under my knee.  the humbling experience of breaking a leg was, to me, a test of my faith.  if things always go well for us, then God doesn't really know if we only love Him by having things go our way all the time (or blessed all the time).  so, i learned to wait and be patient - as i'm always usually in a hurry.  had to be laid up on the couch for a long time and that taught me that having a perfect house isn't that important (though it's nice).  people are #1.  houses are things.  i became much closer to my four year old and she learned to do a lot more things for herself, too.  she answered the phone and brought things to me.  also, my kids did more housework that i'd usually do for them.  and, my husband learned to put up with me in a less than ideal situation.

[timothy42b]

So.

A broken leg.

Is this a natural consequence of doing something unsafe?

Or, did God punish you for doing something unsafe, so as to teach you to pay more attention?

Or, did God punish you for some other sin by giving you a broken leg? 

Any of the three can be supported by some church doctrine, but they are not in any way equivalent. 

The same three questions can be asked for the healing process as well, obviously. 

[pianistimo]

probably all of the three for the first question, and not any of the three for the last.  healing has nothing to do with me.  it's all God.  He could choose to heal me or He could choose to let the 'trial' go on for a period of time.  i think if you show faith right away by trusting that God is right no matter what - then He often heals right away.  if you harbor anger and frustration - it doesn't help the healing process anyway.  perhaps part of what God shows us through healing is that mind and body DO work together.  when we are at peace our body is at peace (knowing that healing will take place).  we don't doubt God and His power.  if He says all we need is a mustard seed of it to move mountains (large problems) then that's all it takes.

the third question about 'did you do something to deserve this' because God works in mysterious ways and that did cross my mind also.  you see, a very good friend was in a car accident about 2 years ago and he was coming to visit me from california.  i tried to tell him that it probably wouldn't be a good idea because we used to talk for hours and it was getting to the point that i was talking too long on my cell phone with him and not talking enough to my husband.  anyway - as friends do - we continued to talk and it was agreed that he was just coming for a visit and to see what pennsylvania was about.  well it wasn't a good idea because obviously it didn't work out.  after making it all the way across the country, he had an accident 30 miles away and ended up being airvaced to a hospital nearby because of neck, arm, bladder, and leg injuries.  they were severe.  i was beside myself with trauma too, because i thought - i caused this.  (being too friendly).  also, it was sort of embarrassing because i had to tell my hubby that a friend was in the hospital and drive for an hour up there and back every few days.  it was not a bother, but it impacted my family.  and, my kids were angry at me because it seemed like i was caring too much for another person.  anyway, it ended up that he lost his car and motorhome that he was pulling, and even though he has healed - the event was traumatic.  i thought that visiting and sending him stuff was enough to rectify the problem - but i think God was telling me through breaking my own leg that when you get 'close' to someone who is not your mate you are tempting God and and tempting fate.  i was able to experience the trauma that i caused him in a small way - though never will know how he managed so much pain.  just having a leg broken is enough to put a person out (black out) but he stayed conscious too.  it is interesting how life does teach lessons - and if they are followed then you see the guiding force of God in your life to show you where yu should be.  i've since decided that if i wasn't supposed to be talking about music (which we did , because he played chopin and liked to talk and listen to classical music also) with someone other than my hubby then i would stop calling so much.  so gradually we talked less - i've not talked with him for many months.  i've learned you can talk yourself into 'sin' (whatever kind) easily - but the consequences are always the same.  painful.  sometimes for one rash action you end up risking things that aren't worth risking.  especially someone else's faith.  i should have been more concerned about this man's faith.  since this all happened, i've apologized to him several times and hope that (since he was not a believer at the time) his experiences will not keep him from seeing God.  he was around 70 or 71 years old at the time of the accident - so i know that if God shows him mercy and blessings (and that his life ends up being better than it was before) then my prayers for him will be answered.  he ended up back in california and is living in a nice apartment in a better area of town than and closer to his daughter - so i know that part has worked out. 

[stevie]

if i fart any louder itll make my ears fall off, so ill just try and keep it in

[pianistimo]

oh, thanks stevie! i feel so special.

[timothy42b]

oh, thanks stevie! i feel so special.

I used to not believe God intervenes directly in the modern physical world, until I saw a post from pianistimo less than 10,000 words, and realized miracles do occur.

pianistimo,

I really do not think God hovers over you all day long waiting for you to screw up badly enough that He owes you a broken leg. 

Instead, I think He created a world that makes sense, that basically follows Newton's laws, and that with no supernatural explanations necessary explains why most things happen.

If you do unsafe things often enough you will get hurt.  God neither intervenes to prevent this nor to cause this.  He set up a world that obeys physical laws and that includes you.  I know you don't like this, to some extent you seem to be in rebellion against it.  But our opinions have very little impact on reality. 

I hope your leg healed well.  I broke an ankle quite badly years ago, still have a bunch of screws holding it together, but recovered enough to run two marathons since. 

[prometheus]

Timothy, personally I never understood why people believe God created a imperfect world that requires her intervention. Why people need a soul, a kind of battery, to 'run'.

All these things didn't make any sense to me. If God is so perfect, powerful and smart then she can just create the whole world so it just runs and works.

Apart from this strange belief; we can see the edge of the visible universe. We observe all kinds of strange and wonderful things. But we never see god intervening, ever. If she did we should have seen it by now.

So I don't understand at all how someone can hold such a strange, almost inherently flawed, belief in the face of both everyday experience and science as a whole.

Really, this is proof for me that a human can be made to belief anything.

[pianistimo]

dear tim42b,  wow, two marathons.  there are a lot of disciplined people on here. am sure that each person has their own particular view of Jesus - and prometheus is entitled to think Jesus is a she if he wants to - but i've never heard that one before!  if Jesus came as a man - i don't think he left as a woman (unless he was on american idol).  apparrently one of the contestants was teased by being asked if he was a girl.  don't think Jesus was effeminate though if he could stand fourty days of fasting and a crucifixion also. 

pain is an interesting subject, though.  the bodies chemicals that work to repair start in right away.  i noticed that my body 'casted' itself by swelling up.  the whole leg (broken area) swelled up.  also, i found it interesting that because of the torn ligaments and probably veins, too, that everything reconnected and that i have circulation again.  it's like three different problems.  the bone, the ligaments, and the smaller veins and capillaries.  for all this to heal (and you feel it healing with different pains and whatever) it's quite amazing and nothing short of a miracle that our bodies regenerate.

[timothy42b]

pianistimo,

In the abstract it matters very little whether you personally understand the natural processes by which reality functions, or which of them you choose to attribute to God.

However historically many many people have found it easy to justify horrible crimes on the theory that sinners deserved it. 

Sort of my version of karma:  the people I mistreat must have had it coming.  Help the sick?  No, that would be heresy, they are sick because God punishes them for sin, we don't want to interfere.  Feed the hungry?  Same thing.  Cancer patients?  Ditto.  AIDS?  Yup.  Refugees?  People of color?  Earthquakes?  Tsunamis?  Etc. 

That is one of the reasons I object to you thinking your broken leg is a punishment from God.  It makes it all to easy for the next person to break a leg in the name of God. 

New motto:  We mediocre people are ALWAYS at our best! 

[pianistimo]

what if what we consider 'natural processes' are not as natural as we think - and some are supranatural?  that is a radically different thought process than our society has had for many years, but one which our forefathers believed.  otherwise, why would we have had trials and judgement/execution of murderers?  not saying that's a good indication -but i'm saying if you do the crime and you do the time (and can't pay your way out) - or if taxes are USED to help the poor (katrina victims, etc., instead of WASTED) - then we would have a just society.  our society isn't just at this point.  it tries to act this way - but in reality is very wasted.  we can 'talk' but we have to 'walk.'

our society seems to think that 'if you can get away with it, it's legal.'  the concept of right and wrong is now grey.  even our children can't see a path to walk on.  it's blurry.  there's the law - and then there's what people do.  to me, a perfect society is one in which everyone accepts a degree of responsibility for what's going on.  i DO think that we are responsible for the weak, the fatherless, the widows, and those who are poor.  not to always just give hand outs -b ut to actually help them get on their feet again and make life easier for them to integrate into society.  i don't think people that want justice are on the outside of society.  they are pushed out.

[prometheus]

Pianistimo, first of I used 'she' to refer to god, because 'she' is used for all other terms that are a bit similar to the concept of god; nature, earth, the world, the universe, forces of nature, etc.

All life is totally amazing. Yes, it is amazing that our bodies work. There are millions of sophisticated processes happening in your bodies that have a very small margin of error. But it is not strange that this is the case. If your bodies didn't work as well as they do we couldn't be here today.

But it is no miracle. A miracle is something that happens only once. If a bone breaks it will heal in most cases.
Really, the healing of a broken bone doesn't use any processes that aren't used in every day life. These 'miracles' happen in all of our bodies every second, just on a different scale.

Faith is fine, as long as people realise it is something private and personal. But when people claim that their sick family member, that has been under intensive care for days and has had several hours long operation and balanced on the edge of death, have been saved by god, instead of by the very intensive and costly, both in manpower and money, treatment, after their prayings then this isn't just very absurd to me, it is also very arrogant and ignorant. Pure stupidity and primitivity.
Now this seems to be the totally natural reaction of many people with strong faiths. Because of this I can only conclude that faith isn't that harmless and innocent as some people think. Of course it can be very innocent and harmless, but often it just isn't.

As for saying that natural disasters like Katrina, or the fact that you broke your leg, is a punishment of god, this goes even more beyond my ability to understand something. It just contradicts everything; both god as a benevolant caring entity and the nature of these disasters. In natural disaters the poor people suffer the most. In the case of Katrina almost all people were poor. In the tsunami in Asia, the same story.
These people are victim of the nature of the society. In no way they can ever be responisble for it. Those in power, who are almost always rich and never poor, are responsible. So if you want to punish those people then a natural disaster will just fail utterly. Surely god knows this. And even ignoring this, a natural disaster will be a crude and impersonal way to punish someone in any case. Plus, aren't we judged in limbo? If we are then why already punish us with something absurd as a natural disaster?
Natural disasters have happened all through history. Maybe god descided to kill off the dinosaur because of their interest in gambling and prostitution; probably not.

If you are a stuntman you will have many injuries and many broken bones. If you do nothing exiting ever then you will probably never break anything. Everyone knows this is a fact so how can you say that breaking bones is a punishment from god? Actually, everyone knows why this is without any thought.

What you say about those that are weak in society. I think we should help them as good as we can. You seem to agree. Yes, the way we treat our animals, children, criminals and disabled shows how civilised we are. But I have seen your reasoning about disasters and accidents being applied to this. Those who are weak are weak because it is god's will. The fact that they are, or can be, exploited by society is their punishment. Animals are our slaves, the disabled are punished by god for their sins, criminals are under influence of the devil, etc.

There is no right and wrong. If you think there is you don't have to think very hard about this. If you think the world is a blurry grey you will have to think very hard. If you think very hard this is called wisdom and it will have it's result. If you want to be 'right' you have to realise the world is blurry grey and that it requires deep and careful thinking.

Our history is a very bloody one. And in past times the supernatural was viewed as something more common than it was before. It seems to me that you suggest that believing in the supernatural results into more compassionate people, eventhough at first it seemed to absurd to assume that this was your point. Surely this is utterly incorrect. I am not saying that 'the belief in science' results in more civilised people but history has proven that christianity leads to brutality. Christianity really created the dark ages, the distruction of the more civilised cultures of the greeks and romans. But even these cultures were savage in some sense. The romans were obsessed with violence and slaves were common.

If you want to champion religion, fine; do it. Do it in a concrete, fair and honest way.

If you want ot champion compassion, fine; do it. Do it in a concrete, fair and honest way. Tell people to oppose the capital punishment. Tell people to fight for the rights of children all over the world. Tell people to buy meat produced in animal friendly ways. Tell people to support the sick and disabled. Tell people to support the compassionate treatment of criminals, regardless of how cruel they themselves are or were. But most important, lead by example. This is important.

[cfortunato]

Pianistimo, first of I used 'she' to refer to god, because 'she' is used for all other terms that are a bit similar to the concept of god; nature, earth, the world, the universe, forces of nature, etc.]]

I have no problem with "She," but I do want to point out that none of those concepts ARE a bit a similar to God, unless one is a pantheist.  In all cases, one is creator and one is created.  There is really nothing "similar" to God, almost by definiition.

[cfortunato]

But it is no miracle. A miracle is something that happens only once.

How are you defining "miracle"?  It seems to me that part of the problem with talking about "miracle" is that we don't actually know what we are discussing.

[timothy42b]

How are you defining "miracle"?  It seems to me that part of the problem with talking about "miracle" is that we don't actually know what we are discussing.

I'll add to the definition.  A miracle is a supernatural intervention that violates natural law. 

Here is a logical framework that many here do not agree with.

Science believes the world operates by a set of natural laws, which can be understood and manipulated.  Over the past few centuries we've become pretty good at reliably determining what those laws are. Consequently we can build computers, go to the moon, etc. 

Magic believes the world operates by a different set of natural laws, such that you can influence events by spells, witchcraft, etc.  Science can find no evidence these laws exist, but predictably this has no impact on the level of belief some people have.  These people tend to be ignorant of even basic science.  Magical powers are not miracles, they just obey natural laws skeptics don't know about. 

Religion straddles the fence a bit.  The moderate Christian denominations, such as I belong to, pretty much accept the scientific laws, but with the caveat that God can if he chooses break them.  We don't think he does very often, but accept the possibility.  That would constitute a miracle.  The more fundamentalistic religions tend to distrust and fear science in general, and have a low level of basic knowledge of how the world functions.  So they include a good dose of magic in their worldview, and believe that God performs miracles pretty much constantly.  They also tend to be gullible about alternative medicine and wacko scientific theories.  There is a gray area here which seems to think that all events, natural and supernatural, are continually caused and controlled by God.  This makes the world a very unpredictable place; fortunately they have their church for comfort. 

[cfortunato]

I'll add to the definition.  A miracle is a supernatural intervention that violates natural law.... 

Religion straddles the fence a bit.  The moderate Christian denominations, such as I belong to, pretty much accept the scientific laws, but with the caveat that God can if he chooses break them.  We don't think he does very often, but accept the possibility.  That would constitute a miracle.  The more fundamentalistic religions tend to distrust and fear science in general, and have a low level of basic knowledge of how the world functions.  So they include a good dose of magic in their worldview, and believe that God performs miracles pretty much constantly.  They also tend to be gullible about alternative medicine and wacko scientific theories.  There is a gray area here which seems to think that all events, natural and supernatural, are continually caused and controlled by God.  This makes the world a very unpredictable place; fortunately they have their church for comfort. 

That's a reasonable definitiion, but it's far from the only definition, and I would say that itsn't the usual one.  Most people use the word to include things far less than the actual breaking of the laws of nature (and the materialist, of course, would deny that such a thing ever happens).  And I doubt that pianistimo thinks that the healing of the leg breaks the laws of nature - he probably thinks that God intervened to give nature a little push.

My uncle recently had an aneurysm.  The doctors said he was either going to die or be a vegetable.  He is neither, although he is far from well, and recovering slowly and maybe never completely.  The word "miracle" is being used routinely to decribe the fact that the man is in much better shape than anyone said he could be.  But I don't think anyone thinks it breaks the laws of nature.  Many people use it to mean ANY action by God, whether it breaks the laws of nature or not.

And some use "miracle" for fairly commonplace things, like the birth of a baby or the overcoming of addiction.

I think that in discussions like this, people wind up talking past each other.  You and pianistimo don't really mean the same thing when you say "miracle."  So of course you disagree on whether or not one occurred.

[prometheus]

Yes, if miracles happen more often then science can make a law and predict it. It will no longer something supernatural and then no one will call it a miracle any longer.

You will find out that when you talk about miracles with a scientist they will tell you that it lies out of their realms because miracles only happen once.

Now someone may simply state that a miracle is divine intervention but that really isn't correct according to most philosophers. It is something that goes beyond the laws of nature. And like I said before, if something goes beyong the laws of nature rather often, in the same way, then you can make a new law and fit this property of nature. That has happened in the past.
But if something happens only once science can do nothing to explain it.

So a healing bone can only be a miracle when it is impossible to explain why the bone heals, which is just not the case. Amazing and wonderful, sure, but that is not part of the definition of a miracle. At the moment I am typing this there are trillions of amazing things going on. And they all happen many times every seconds. These are not miracles, it is the 'miracle' of nature.

As Hume put it: "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent."

[pianistimo]

i think life itself is a miracle and that the human body is a miracle.  i think there are different types/varieties.  as one says:  we expect what we've already seen (even if it is miraculous) so if we see something that is not as common (a helping hand of sorts, as mentioned by cfortunato) then that will be believed as a miracle by mainstream christians even when others doubt.  some  of the more wonderful or even bizarre 'miracles' have to be taken with a grain of salt.  we know that for God anything is possible - but not all things are edifying.  so, if a miracle has no purpose - then it is 'hype.'  God seems to always have a purpose to what he does.  He isn't out performing miracles to get people to cry.  the end of Christ's healing was to bring the person to the gospel and not always physical healing the final outcome.  maybe mental healing is what Christ was most concerned with.

i'm realizing the huge gap in the study of the mind.  psychologists can analyze and determine failures of what is the 'norm' in human behaviour, but they cannot 'heal' you.  they can prescribe medication and 'normalize' a person into behaviors by some well thought out methods - but to be HEALED of a problem is a miracle.  this is where the statistics and all get sort of blurred and are not used basically.  science doesn't accept anything but distinct boundaries.  faith accepts that those boundaries can be broken.  then someone with a horrible background, or a murderer (actually being sorry for what they did - or becomes able to be sorry) can be miraculously softened by the gospel or someone who preaches the gospel of truth.  abuse, the same way. 

God is proactive and doesn't wait for problems to occur in society.  our way is the reverse.  we let things go too long and thus the murders, and rapes, and stealing of tax dollars, etc.  Seems that a perfect society would accept moral responsibility for actions.  that people would be taught from babies to adulthood that they play an important part of society.  no outcasts - or people seeking attention through vicarious means.  i'm starting to see the really big importance that  God places on teaching your children.  responsibility is something that Jesus taught.  being responsible for one's own actions.

[prometheus]

but to be HEALED of a problem is a miracle.

The body heals itself. Even mental illnesses heal themselves, all the time.

science doesn't accept anything but distinct boundaries.

Science accepts nature as she is, religion does not![/size]

[contrapunctus]

Here is proof that God exists:

Since we can imagine a perfect being, God must exist because He could not be perfect without the added perfection of existence.

[mosis]

Here is proof that God exists:

Since we can imagine a perfect being, God must exist because He could not be perfect without the added perfection of existence.

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Jesus is a total punk that Maynard James Keenan bumped into while location scouting in LA.

[prometheus]

There is a very very long list with arguments like those. The stupid thing is that they come from somewhat respected people and that those people are famed because of their arguments.

[cfortunato]

There is a very very long list with arguments like those. The stupid thing is that they come from somewhat respected people and that those people are famed because of their arguments.

The problem with philosophical arguments for the existence of God is that I don't think they  ever convince anybody of the existence of God.  Some of them are dumb; some of them are provocative.  But none actually constitutes proof, and I don't think that anyone has ever become either a theist or an atheist on the strength of a philosophical argument.

[ahinton]

The problem with philosophical arguments for the existence of God is that I don't think they  ever convince anybody of the existence of God.  Some of them are dumb; some of them are provocative.  But none actually constitutes proof, and I don't think that anyone has ever become either a theist or an atheist on the strength of a philosophical argument.

Even in the cases where one might reasonably assume your the use of the term "provocative" to be non-pejorative, there seems to be little room for argument with this statement; I suppose it could be contended that certain such "philosophical arguments" might occasionally actually convince - or rather assist in convincing - some people of the existence of God, but what is beyond any question is that such arguments nevertheless do not, as you opine, "actually constitute proof" - indeed, notwithstanding the best will in the world, they cannot do so either.

Best,

Alistair

[pianowelsh]

Nah! Jesus had it right when he said to one of the disciple 'who do you say i am?' the disciple said 'you are the son of the living God' To which Jesus replied 'flesh and blood didnt reveal that to you but my father in heaven'. I'll tell you again that this is the only proof BUT it is Proof, that God exists. God is unseen but is yet knowable - what a paradox for you to ponder on . Believe it or dont believe it - it actually dosent alter the fact that it just Is. Apart from this - not taking away that this is by far the most important and conclusive way of prooving God. There is also the small matter of those clearly recorded historical eyewitness accounts which document Gods leading Gods manifestations in the old testament and God's voice audibly speaking to men and women throughout history.  I tell you if you want to be all scientific and test your theory three times to proove it youve got your proof because there are far more than 3 people in the world who will testify to God speaking to them directly. I daresay for most of the people on this forum there are probably more than 3 people in you neighbourhood. however it is totally true that no argument has ever convinced or disuaded anyone from beliveing in the existence of God. you either know him as a father or you dont know him its really simple actually by biblical standards.  Jesus came to testify of the father - he lived in complete obedience to the father and the father raised him up to life again. Therefore we can acertain that Jesus was in no doubt as to who God was and his trust in him was total. Jesus is God incarnate. HE walked in perfection - sinless so that He could be our substitute - He was God's plan for our salvation from the very beginning and he was obedient for our sake because without his sacrifice we would be completely withou hope and God would have no reason to sustain this world anylonger. God destroyed the face of the earth once in the flood. If God hadnt promised the coming of Jesus in the garden there would have been absolutely no point in starting again but God ensured that Noah was spared (as a preacher or righteousness - being right before God) We are living in a time of Grace. God has very clearly said that Jesus is coming again to judge the living and the dead. Not only do we have Noah in this generation but we have the very testamony of Christ we have the witness of the apostles and countless millions of beleievers who have trusted in Christ.  This generation is without excuse before God.  He is knowable through the work of his son Jesus. 'Call upon him while He is near'.  You will note that 'while' he is near.  The day is coming when it will be too late.  Under God I would ask you not to make the mistake that Noah's generation did..for your sakes

[tac-tics]

If someone today came forth from the masses, claiming things like their mother was a virgin and that they were the second coming of Jesus Christ, what would happen?

Answer: "OMG a cult!"

While some psycho Christian groups might actually believe him, most would be pretty darn skeptical.

But then, what if it turned out he WAS Christ? All the sane, well-balanced people would end up in Hell.

The end!

[timothy42b]

Nah! Jesus had it right when he said to one of the disciple 'who do you say i am?' the disciple said 'you are the son of the living God'

Be careful here.

Sunday School can be different from what the Bible really says.

ONLY in John does Jesus clearly claim to be God, and John is a closet Gnostic.  Everywhere else the issue is pretty murky. 

[lisztisforkids]

If someone today came forth from the masses, claiming things like their mother was a virgin and that they were the second coming of Jesus Christ, what would happen?

Answer: "OMG a cult!"

While some psycho Christian groups might actually believe him, most would be pretty darn skeptical.

But then, what if it turned out he WAS Christ? All the sane, well-balanced people would end up in Hell.

The end!

I am convinced that Stevie is indeed Jesus come bak to reclaim his kingdom and lead his followers to paradise...

[pianistimo]

he'd make a better anti-christ - but i'm just joking.  i think he actually thinks about these things more deeply than he lets on.

[gyzzzmo]

Quite incomplete question. You should add words like 'only charismatic' or whatever.
We often forget how much people like to make up stories or add impressive stuff to their story.

[ahinton]

I am convinced that Stevie is indeed Jesus come bak to reclaim his kingdom and lead his followers to paradise...

OK - so should "Jesus" stop taking (or increase the dosage of) the medication?

Best,

Alistair

[henrah]

I tell you if you want to be all scientific and test your theory three times to proove it youve got your proof because there are far more than 3 people in the world who will testify to God speaking to them directly. I daresay for most of the people on this forum there are probably more than 3 people in you neighbourhood.

But are there three people to testify each persons statement as correct? This is the same with abductees: with only the single person stating it happened, and no one to back them up, there is no way you can tell that they are telling the truth. For all you know they could be a schizophrenic crackpot or someone with a different kind of mental illness, or someone who wanted some publicity. But then again, they might also be telling the truth. There is no way to prove it, just like there is no sure way to prove God's existence.



Actually, scratch that.... I think I'm about to prove God's existence so bear with me.

God does exist, in one sense. He exists in our discussion, and he exists in the Bible, and he exists in peoples minds. But unfortunately there is no sure fire way to prove he exists tangibly. Then again, this might be how God truly exists: in peoples beliefs, much like a childs imaginable friend exists in their belief that it exists.


Therefore God does exist. And so do giant chocolate covered strawberry filled elephants, if I were tripping on acid. They might not exist tangibly (i.e. I wouldn't be able to physically touch them and eat them), but they do exist in my mind - or trip rather.
Henrah

[timothy42b]

There are far more than three people in the world who have had the experience of God telling them exactly when the world would end. 

Many of them have gathered followers, sold their posessions, and waited on the mountaintop.

Alas, the world is still here.  Therefore it would appear that the perception of God speaking to you is not reliable.  We have many proven examples where it was false.  We have none (for sure) where it was true.  That doesn't rule it out, but should beg for a prudent skepticism