Originally posted by jaywillWell, I can see a man - many of them actually.
Good question. What's a man for that matter?
In fact, I can understand a man intuitively, since I am one.
But for a god, all I have is your vague question about man becoming. What are you asking we will become? Supernatural - operating beyond the laws of nature and the substance of the natural world? Creators of universes? Purveyors in miracles?
Originally posted by amannionIn human history I think the most striking example of a true man is Jesus Christ. In human history He is also to me the most striking example of a God.
Well, I can see a man - many of them actually.
In fact, I can understand a man intuitively, since I am one.
But for a god, all I have is your vague question about man becoming. What are you asking we will become? Supernatural - operating beyond the laws of nature and the substance of the natural world? Creators of universes? Purveyors in miracles?
So it is very interesting to me that the greatest example of both Man and God is in one Person - Jesus of Nazareth.
The divine attributes of this Person are expressed in Human virtues. And the relationship between the Divine and the Human, the natural and the supernatural - are perfectly synthesized.
So in this one historical person the divinity of God and the humanity of man are united into one marvelous being.
I would suggest that you read through the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John to get the truest picture of both what man is or should be and what God is.
One Person is the answer to both mysteries.
Originally posted by jaywillThat's just gobbledegook. Actually it reminds me of new age' speak and is meaningless.
In human history I think the most striking example of a true man is Jesus Christ. In human history He is also to me the most striking example of a God.
So it is very interesting to me that the greatest example of both Man and God is in one Person - Jesus of Nazareth.
The divine attributes of this Person are expressed in Human virtues. And the relat ...[text shortened]... f both what man is or should be and what God is.
One Person is the answer to both mysteries.
The divine attributes of this Person are expressed in Human virtues. And the relationship between the Divine and the Human, the natural and the supernatural - are perfectly synthesized.
What the hell is this supposed to mean?
I get that you're a christian and so revere this guy, but what point are you hoping to get across to a non-believer?
What are these divine attributes? Other than that someone, writing years later, attributes stuff to him?
What are these human virtues?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to dis Jesus, but c'mon, you've got to do better than this ...
Originally posted by Conrau KI was not talking about that specific claim when I used the word "wild", but rather any extravagant claim.
But you already know that the claim is "wild" - you know this intuitively. From that, you should be able to construct a counter-argument which challenges the soundness of their belief. Otherwise, your sense that the belief is wild is totally unjustified.
I can, of course, construct a counter argument, but the point is that I DON'T HAVE TO. In the absense of evidence their claim can simply be dismissed.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillNazareth didn't actually exist, it wasn't built, until AFTER Jesus died.
Jesus of Nazareth.
From Wiki
"no archaeological evidence from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times have been found.[11] [12] Bagatti, the principle archaeologist at the venerated sites in Nazareth, unearthed quantities of later Roman and Byzantine artefacts,[13] attesting to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward."
And;
"James Strange, an American archaeologist notes that “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. "
And;
"Non-biblical textual references to Nazareth do not occur until around 200 AD, when Julius Africanus, cited by Eusebius (Church History 1.7.14), speaks of “Nazara” as a village in "Judea" and locates it near an as-yet unidentified “Cochaba.” This curious description does not fit the traditional location of Nazareth in Lower Galilee."
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrYou mean if we could line up all the people you've known they'd all testify that there was nothing wrong with your heart?
My heart is fine, thanks. Don't project your illnesses on others.
Some guy once said that no one is so fortunate that at his death bed there could not be at least one person standing there with delight.
Whose that one person for you?
Originally posted by jaywillI see no reason to think that that is criterial. Some people who know me do not know me well. Some people who know me have differing views concerning what constitutes health. Some people who know me are themselves ill. Some people who know me would not understand the question. But of those healthy others that know me intimately, I would have no fear of the content of their testimony. I have no idea who would delight at my death, and in fact do not care to have an idea. Worrying to much about what others think of you is not healthy, as is laboring under the belief that you are sick by nature.
You mean if we could line up all the people you've known they'd all testify that there was nothing wrong with your heart?
Some guy once said that no one is so fortunate that at his death bed there could not be at least one person standing there with delight.
Whose that one person for you?
Originally posted by jaywillA coronary surgeon might be better to ask though.
You mean if we could line up all the people you've known they'd all testify that there was nothing wrong with your heart?
Some guy once said that no one is so fortunate that at his death bed there could not be at least one person standing there with delight.
Whose that one person for you?
I think perhaps you are looking to evaluate his moral choices, which are NOT made by an organ for pumping blood.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou don't have to construct a counter-argument either way. All I am saying is that if you reject someone else's belief, you should have a reason for such rejection. Presumably, if someone said to you, God does not exist, you would not stipulate that they fulfil the burden of proof.
I can, of course, construct a counter argument, but the point is that I DON'T HAVE TO. In the absense of evidence their claim can simply be dismissed.
Originally posted by Conrau Kthis counter-argument would be "i don't see any evidence for the existence of god and that is why i don't believe." it's like in court, you don't go to jail if you don't prove your innocence, you go to jail if you are proven guilty. a theist must prove god's "innocence" (or existence), otherwise the verdict is "guilty" (or non-existent).
You don't have to construct a counter-argument either way. All I am saying is that if you reject someone else's belief, you should have a reason for such rejection. Presumably, if someone said to you, God does not exist, you would not stipulate that they fulfil the burden of proof.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomIn this thread, however, an atheist first asserted God does not exist; he did this gratuitousy and offered no justification for this statement. Why shouldn't the burden of proof not be on him?
this counter-argument would be "i don't see any evidence for the existence of god and that is why i don't believe." it's like in court, you don't go to jail if you don't prove your innocence, you go to jail if you are proven guilty. a theist must prove god's "innocence" (or existence), otherwise the verdict is "guilty" (or non-existent).
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomEV,
this counter-argument would be "i don't see any evidence for the existence of god and that is why i don't believe." it's like in court, you don't go to jail if you don't prove your innocence, you go to jail if you are proven guilty. a theist must prove god's "innocence" (or existence), otherwise the verdict is "guilty" (or non-existent).
Well, interesting analogy. But in the country I am in you are innocent until proven guilty.
Seems like you've reveresed that concept.
Originally posted by bbarrIt is not a matter of worrying about it. It is the recognition of the fact that you have wronged others. You have sinned against others.
I see no reason to think that that is criterial. Some people who know me do not know me well. Some people who know me have differing views concerning what constitutes health. Some people who know me are themselves ill. Some people who know me would not understand the question. But of those healthy others that know me intimately, I would have no fea ...[text shortened]... others think of you is not healthy, as is laboring under the belief that you are sick by nature.
You have. I have. We all have.
Now we are sensative when we are wronged. Often times we are not that sensative when the wrong comes FROM us TOWARDS others.
You have offended as well as having been offended. You have transgressed against someone as well as someone having done so to you.
That is unless you're an angel and not a typical human being on this side of the fall of man.