Hebrews 1:3

@galveston75 said
Thanks. So what are your thoughts on the link I gave to look into?

Have not looked at it yet, but I give you my word I'll read it soon.

@fmf said
Is this what a "Moralistic fallacy" is? Or is it, as you say, just an irrelevance or kind of red herring? You certainly know more about informal fallacies than I do.

A moralistic fallacy is just an appeal to consequences: if X were the case then Y would be the case and Y is too terrible to contemplate therefore X cannot be true. I had a careful look at the preceding argument in case it was a back reference but it doesn't fit coherently with it. There's the implied assumption that God exists (fine, we know sonship believes this), and the statement that since God exists Ghost owes his ability to reason to God, and then a value judgement about reading Hebrews. I don't think there's an argument at all, it's probably not intended to be one.

@secondson said
I did read your post in its entirety, and you're entirely wrong about the Godhead.

Now go read my reply to it and try to tell me where I'm wrong.

I presented you with scripturally air-tight evidence that the singular name of the father and of the son of of the Holy Spirit is Jesus Christ.

I pen doing so I demonstrated that the verbal trinitarian model of baptism I.e. saying out loud - “in the name of the Father and of the son and of the Holy Spirit” is erroneous.

You telling me I’m wrong is not an argument need to demonstrate how what I wrote is wrong.


Again, for ease of reference:

Jesus commanded the apostles:
"go and baptise in the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy spirit."

There is not one instance in the entire NT where the disciples baptised using the trinitarian formula - which incidentally is entirely relevant.

The disciples baptised using the name of Jesus every single time without fail - thus: I baptise you in the name of Jesus Christ

and never: I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the son and of the holy spirit

So what is the one single name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy ghost? it is Jesus. Jesus is the name of the Father and the holy spirit - it's right there in Acts!

Irrespective of doves, prayers, calling out, they are the same single person, the same single entity. Not three. Three is pagan and totally unscriptural. The disciples new this.

@deepthought said
A moralistic fallacy is just an appeal to consequences: if X were the case then Y would be the case and Y is too terrible to contemplate therefore X cannot be true.

Is this a little bit akin to Slippery Slope?

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

[quote] As an atheist, I obviously believe there never has been a God, but as an academic am still able to objectively decipher the meaning of religious texts, such as the bible. In doing this with Hebrews 1, I conclude that Jesus was indeed the first thing made by God (the firstborn over all creation) but this does not equate as 'no allegiance is necessar ...[text shortened]... s come from God.

I'm glad you're reading Hebrews and have no further comment right now.

Actually, 'evolution' gave both of us the ability to reason and debate (and of course conjure up deities).

Edit - I have no idea if the above is a moralistic fallacy.

😴

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Actually, 'evolution' gave both of us the ability to reason and debate (and of course conjure up deities).

I believe it is the suite of intellectual and emotional capacities, including those for abstraction and self-recognition ~ let's call them constituent parts of the human spirit - that enables and encourages humans to "conjure up deities"... for an abundance of evidence see human history, see anthropology, see human geography, culture, psychology, theology etc. etc.

@fmf said
I believe it is the suite of intellectual and emotional capacities, including those for abstraction and self-recognition ~ let's call them constituent parts of the human spirit - that enables and encourages humans to "conjure up deities"... for an abundance of evidence see human history, see anthropology, see human geography, culture, psychology, theology etc. etc.

I think highly intelligent creatures 'need' a God, as a result of that high intelligence (which, for example, enables them to contemplate their own mortality).

In contrast, my cat is purr-fectly content without a God.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think highly intelligent creatures 'need' a God, as a result of that high intelligence (which, for example, enables them to contemplate their own mortality).

Religions don't just contemplate mortality, they 'solve' it with promises of immortality!

@ghost-of-a-duke said
In contrast, my cat is purr-fectly content without a God.

Ah yes. but not being a Christian, are you able to tell the difference between the contentment of [1] humans, [2] cats, and [3] maggots?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
In contrast, my cat is purr-fectly content without a God.

Your cat may think you are their God.

@divegeester said
Your cat may think you are their God.

A dog may think that, but never a cat.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
A dog may think that, but never a cat.

I don't know who said this first.
Dog's have owners, cats have staff.

@kellyjay said
I don't know who said this first.
Dog's have owners, cats have staff.

And Trump has "his base".

@fmf said
Religions don't just contemplate mortality, they 'solve' it with promises of immortality!

Indeed.

I know Marx tends to get a rough ride in this forum (and will earn me a few thumbs down) but I actually find this quote from him quite profound and moving:

'Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.'

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

'Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.'

I believe that Karl Marx used the book of Acts in the New Testament to demonstrate the effectiveness of having all things in common. He saw it as Communism.

Interestingly it was the fervent belief that Christ had risen from the dead and was starting a new spiritual community that led them to pool all thier material resources together.

Acts 2:44

English Standard Version
And all who believed were together and had all things in common.

Acts 2:32

English Standard Version
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.