The intent of christ

If I said I was God, and Bob said I wasn't, and you bitch-slapped Bob, I'd kinda be mad at you.

 

He didn't call Jesus a liar. He just didn't agree with him on everything.

Yep sorry about that one.

Hmmm. I don't think you have experienced the kind of Enthusiasm I'm talking about. What you are thinking of is akin to excitement, what I am thinking of is more akin to Agape.

I think you don't get what I'm saying. I am saying that there is no gulf between us and god. Or god and everything else for that matter.

God is not in us. God IS us. To say otherwise would suggest God is not omnious.

 

freakyjoeman is right there. i'd be pretty pissed too.



anyway...i think of jesus as a man. to look upon him as an infinite being seems only to sever the link and equallity between him and the people who loved him and still love him. that probably sounds silly to a lot of people.

oh well.

 

hmmm...we are entitled to our own views.... I dont know...I believe that God is an entity made up of the three..father son and holy ghost (no im not catholic)..its like an egg...the 3 parts (shell, white, yolk) make up a whole..and Jesus is the son..the bible says so..and since no one can come to the father but through the son, that makes him just as much as God as the other two entities.

 

What he said was akin to you saying "My name is Sebbi" and me telling you that I disagree. Either I am implying that I think you are a liar or I am implying that you are crazy.

Yeah, felt agape too. Agape is simply selfless love. Unconditional love. This is not a feeling, but a state of mind and an act of will. As such, it isn't really a "feeling" that you get. So no, I don't think agape love shows or indicates in any way that somehow "God is us." If agape is evidence that we area part of God, then EVERYTHING would demonstrate agape, but that simply isn't the case. Therefore, at least one of two things is true. Either "enthusaism" is NOT an aspect of God (since not everything demonstrates or experiences it) or God is not everything. It is possible that both statements are true (and I think they are). In either case, feeling "enthusaism" is not any sort of evidence that indicates that God is us.

Okay. The same question applies. "How do you draw this conclusion? What logical steps did you take?" Also, what do you mean by "omnious?"

 

Alsharad

You pointedly failded to answer the most important question

NOT a statement of any fact by occam ..but a question


"If it is not...and christianity is true...
Then occam will burn in hell for no reason..A thing YOU must justify to
yourself...
Occam wishes NO HUMAN, to suffer for the beliefs of others...

Yet you accept that occam will suffer ,, for what?
YOUR BELIEFS?
Because he trusts his method above the non-method of religion

If he has faith..he abondons reason.
If he has reason..he has no faith...
Both are given by your god...

Which path should occam take...?

Which path? Yours?
Why

Religion is about personal beliefs...Not real phenomena, defined by REASON
as FACT...Remember reason is not true by your belief in a thing not based in reason,,,religion
Thus you cannot talk of FACT as others do, using the METHOD of reason

You believe a thing..because you wish to.
Show occam why HE should believe your beliefs?

While YOU DO BELIEVE HIS...
Do you believe in gravity?
Yes...you have to..but where is it in the bible?

Why does the bible SAY NOTHING ABOUT any law of reality?
Why does jesus
NEVER CRACK A JOKE
WHY is god a facist bastard in he old testament and a loving god in the NEW?
Why do you threaten any and all who do not agree with you world view..with eternal torture...
Is it some personal lack of earthly power that drives you to do so?

Occam has NO FEAR of your hell
It is a pavlovian tool to manipulate.
The closest occam will EVER GET TO HELL
is playing DooM3

What a bummer..a whole philosophy turned into a theme for a game...
And doing a better job of it than any evangelist. Or any book
Your hell has become entertainment..Rather than a threat...
This is a result of your god giving us reason
A thing sheep do not have....

Occam

 

Not neccersarily. Unless mistaken means crazy.

That God is everything is my interpretation of your book. Personally I don't believe in God as such. If I do I call it by another name, and personally I reckon the force I place my faith in, is more powerful than your God, and I would rather believe in that force.

As for "Omnious" break it down "omni" and a suffix "ous"

Blessings

Sebbi

 

occam should follow the path of his own.



i would choose the way of nothing over the way of another if it came down to it. and i would assume occam to do the same.


to follow the way [or faith] of another, would be a prison.


one should stay true to oneself.

as no faith should adhere to another but should always practice tolerance.


you must excuse me but i don't know if occam is an actual faith or philosophy ... i have never heard of it. so i wasn't sure if you were talking in the third person all the time.

 

no1 shud choose theyre faith out of manipulation but because of theyre own convictions

 

Sorry, I thought I did. I'll make sure that I address it.

[QUOTE[
If he has faith..he abondons reason.
If he has reason..he has no faith...
Both are given by your god...

Which path should occam take...?[/QUOTE]
That is the point, you are creating a false dichotomy. The answer is that you should take BOTH paths. You have a false view of faith. As I have said before: Faith can go beyond reason, but it can never contradict reason. So, use reason AND faith. Any faith which contradicts reason is an irrational (meaning illogical faith). All inductive reasoning (which is a HUGE part of logic) is built upon lessening the amount of faith necessary to believe something, but it cannot remove faith entirely (if it could, then the argument would be deductive). Would you say that all inductive arguments are irrational because they include an element of faith? You are blinded by the idea that faith and reason are opposed to each other. The thing is, you cannot deductively or inductively show (using logic) that faith is opposed to reason. Faith is guided by reason, but not bound by it. Also not that there is a difference between non-rational versus illogical. Non-rational would be something outside the bounds of reason (i.e. personal opinions like which flavor of ice cream is the best). Illogical would be those things which contradict logic (i.e. a square circle).

Umm... I think I understood what you meant, if not, please correct me. Christianity is not based around personal feelings or mystical beliefs. It is based around a historical event. The Ressurection. Now, you have to look at the Gospels as eyewitness accounts and personal testimonies (that's what they claim to be). We also know that they have been accurately been transmitted to us. If they haven't, then we can just throw everything from Plato to Homer to Tacitus and Josephus into the trash, because if the Gospels haven't been accurately transmitted, then NOTHING has (this isn't a matter of faith, this has to do with manuscript evidence). Now, the authors either believed what they wrote or they didn't. To say that they didn't (e.g. they lied) is to stretch the bounds of credulity when you considered what happened to them. A man might die for what he believes (whether it is true or false), but no man would die for something he KNOWS to be false. All the authors of the Gospel died and it was their sworn testimony that Christ had risen and that THEY HAD SEEN HIM.

So, the facts of history are plain. You have a man that lived. His folowers all said that they had seen Him alive AFTER He had been executed. They all died for claiming that they had seen Him and that He was therefore God. They had to believe their own claims, so one of two things happened: 1) Christ came back from the dead, therefore vindicating His claims to diety, or 2) there was some sort of mass confusion/hallucination. Something happened to change these people's mind.

Take James. James was the half-brother of Jesus Christ. If you maintain that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ (I don't), then at the least, James was raised in Jesus's immediate family. What would it take to convince you that an immediate family member (brother or sister or cousin) was Yaweh (I use that to avoid confusion)? The last person I asked that laughed so hard he almost fell out of his chair. Apparently, his sister is unpleasant. Anyway, that is exactly what happened with James. He died claiming that Christ, his half-brother, was Yahweh! And he was stoned, stoning takes time. He had plenty of time to recant. But he didn't. That is a pretty strong testimony IMHO.

Would it change anything? The bible is about God's redemptive plan for mankind, not about Creation and the physical laws that govern it.

He does. There is a pretty funny one in one of the Gospels, but I forget the specifics. He makes a word play in Aramaic regarding the pharisees. Basically, he says that they think they are holy but really they are rat-finks and "holy" and "rat-fink" are almost identical words and they rhyme. In context, it is quite witty.

The thing about humor is that what is considered funny changes with the culture. Even if He told a joke that was funny to a culture 2000 years ago, would you get it now?

He is the same God all the way through. But that is a topic for a new thread.

Nope. If it is true and we DON'T warn people, then aren't we worse people than we would be if there is NO HELL and we tell people there is? We don't threaten Hell, we just acknowledge that it exists and that there are people who will go there (unfortunately).

Could it not just be a mistake. You cannot prove there is no hell anymore than I can prove there is. Saying there is no hell is a matter of opinion, but to dogmatically assert that it is, therefore, a tool for manipulation is unjustified. It could just be a mistake, but people believe that it exist, so they vehemently warn against it. What proof do you have for your second statement?

 

Huh? If you claim to be something and I say that you are wrong, I am imply that you are either a liar (if you know that you are wrong) or crazy (you don't know that you are wrong, but believe it anyway). When I say that you claim to be something, I don't mean that you say you are a doctor and leave it at that. What I mean is that you say you are a doctor and then begin to perscribe medication, operate, examine people, etc. Christ said He was God and then began to teach on His own authority as God.

Then you have misinterpreted. The authors clearly believe that God exists independent of Creation. Your interpretation is contradictory to the author's, therefore, your interpretation is wrong. Even if you are right in that God is everthing, the Bible clearly does not teach that.

I guess we'll see someday, huh? Heh... my God is better than your God? I haven't heard that argument in a while! LOL.

omni-
pref. All

-ous
suff.

1. Possessing; full of; characterized by: joyous.

"Full of all?" "Possessing all?" "Characterized by all?" I don't think that is coherent. I don't think you can attach a prefix to a suffix. There has to be a root word.

 

There really is no point arguing this one anymore.

There are millions of interpretation of your book. To say that your's is right and mine is wrong is plain self-rightiousness.

Don't mean it in that way. Each to his own, your belief is your path, my belief is mine.

I heard this word used a thousand times before. I'm not going to argue with all the people I've heard using it.

See you later

Sebbi

 

We can agree to disagree.

I didn't say that mine was right. But the AUTHOR'S interpretation of his own work is ALWAYS right. Think of it this way, suppose you wrote a book on how to love everyone and to accept everyone's beliefs and how "your belief is your path, my belief is mine." Then someone contacts you and tells you how much he loved your book and how he loves how you stand for what you believe in and how you said to distain others beliefs and treat differing ideas with skepticism and distain and how we should convince people to realign their beliefs with ours. Did he not misinterpret your book? Now he is going around telling everyone that what he interpreted the book to say is what you actually said. He is putting words in your mouth and you begin to appear as a bigot. Is that not libelous? Another example would be if you wrote an essay stating that "red cars go faster" and I read it and started telling everyone how you said black cars go faster. I wouldn't just have another possible interpretation, I would be wrong. I hope you see my point. Other interpretations, I think, are okay when they are congruous with the author's interpretation of his own work. Anything else is a misinterpretation. In this case, God is considered to be independent of Creation.

 

Bare in mind we don't have any idea what the author wanted to say. Firstly there are so many authors of it, plus they all died years ago so we can't ask them. Also it has been translated so many times, mix that with the skew the coucil of Nicea put on it, we have no idea what the authors meant, all we have to go by is our interpretation.

And there are many interpretation that all seem as reasonable as eachother. Read some work by Christian mystics and you'll see what I mean: Spyros Sathi, Don Juan and Carlos Castaneda, Paulo Coelho are all devout Christian and have all read the Bible cover to cover and practice their interpretation of it, different as it may be to yours. If you read their stuff leaving your cynicism behind, I think you won't disagree with them.

Blessings

 

That does make it harder, yes. But it isn't impossible. There are contextual clues and cultural expressions that are found throughout the New Testament. That is what makes the New Testament so great. It wasn't written in some historical void. It was written at a specific time in history at a specific place. It makes specific historical references which can be checked for accuracy. The New Testament IS a historical document which can be cross referenced with other historical documents for historical accuracy. That gives us all sorts of clues as to what was meant by the authors.

Greek -> English. Hmmm... that would be one time. And the amazing thing is that we have plenty of texts which pre-date the Council of Nicea. If they skewed it, you will have a hard time proving it.

I think that I would. I am not ready to abandon my logic yet.

 

Ah..well you said it

You believe in hell as a real thing....
And you believe occam will go there...
Welll..thats one problem for you...REMOVED.

Weather hell exists or not is irrelevant.
YOU believe it does...[unfortunately]
And that occam will go there.
For his sins...

Which sins are those. ?

Occam

 

That is the point, you are creating a false dichotomy. The answer is that you should take BOTH paths. You have a false view of faith. As I have said before: Faith can go beyond reason, but it can never contradict reason. So, use reason AND faith. Any faith which contradicts reason is an irrational (meaning illogical faith). All inductive reasoning (which is a HUGE part of logic) is built upon lessening the amount of faith necessary to believe something, but it cannot remove faith entirely (if it could, then the argument would be deductive). Would you say that all inductive arguments are irrational because they include an element of faith? You are blinded by the idea that faith and reason are opposed to each other. The thing is, you cannot deductively or inductively show (using logic) that faith is opposed to reason. Faith is guided by reason, but not bound by it. Also not that there is a difference between non-rational versus illogical. Non-rational would be something outside the bounds of reason (i.e. personal opinions like which flavor of ice cream is the best). Illogical would be those things which contradict logic (i.e. a square circle).


Umm... I think I understood what you meant, if not, please correct me. Christianity is not based around personal feelings or mystical beliefs. It is based around a historical event. The Ressurection. Now, you have to look at the Gospels as eyewitness accounts and personal testimonies (that's what they claim to be). We also know that they have been accurately been transmitted to us. If they haven't, then we can just throw everything from Plato to Homer to Tacitus and Josephus into the trash, because if the Gospels haven't been accurately transmitted, then NOTHING has (this isn't a matter of faith, this has to do with manuscript evidence). Now, the authors either believed what they wrote or they didn't. To say that they didn't (e.g. they lied) is to stretch the bounds of credulity when you considered what happened to them. A man might die for what he believes (whether it is true or false), but no man would die for something he KNOWS to be false. All the authors of the Gospel died and it was their sworn testimony that Christ had risen and that THEY HAD SEEN HIM.

So, the facts of history are plain. You have a man that lived. His folowers all said that they had seen Him alive AFTER He had been executed. They all died for claiming that they had seen Him and that He was therefore God. They had to believe their own claims, so one of two things happened: 1) Christ came back from the dead, therefore vindicating His claims to diety, or 2) there was some sort of mass confusion/hallucination. Something happened to change these people's mind.

Take James. James was the half-brother of Jesus Christ. If you maintain that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ (I don't), then at the least, James was raised in Jesus's immediate family. What would it take to convince you that an immediate family member (brother or sister or cousin) was Yaweh (I use that to avoid confusion)? The last person I asked that laughed so hard he almost fell out of his chair. Apparently, his sister is unpleasant. Anyway, that is exactly what happened with James. He died claiming that Christ, his half-brother, was Yahweh! And he was stoned, stoning takes time. He had plenty of time to recant. But he didn't. That is a pretty strong testimony IMHO.


Would it change anything? The bible is about God's redemptive plan for mankind, not about Creation and the physical laws that govern it.


He does. There is a pretty funny one in one of the Gospels, but I forget the specifics. He makes a word play in Aramaic regarding the pharisees. Basically, he says that they think they are holy but really they are rat-finks and "holy" and "rat-fink" are almost identical words and they rhyme. In context, it is quite witty.

The thing about humor is that what is considered funny changes with the culture. Even if He told a joke that was funny to a culture 2000 years ago, would you get it now?


He is the same God all the way through. But that is a topic for a new thread.


Nope. If it is true and we DON'T warn people, then aren't we worse people than we would be if there is NO HELL and we tell people there is? We don't threaten Hell, we just acknowledge that it exists and that there are people who will go there (unfortunately).


Could it not just be a mistake. You cannot prove there is no hell anymore than I can prove there is. Saying there is no hell is a matter of opinion, but to dogmatically assert that it is, therefore, a tool for manipulation is unjustified. It could just be a mistake, but people believe that it exist, so they vehemently warn against it. What proof do you have for your second statement?[/QUOTE] Alsharad

Occam is very tired
He WILL get back to you...

Occam

 

How is it removed? You think that I WANT you (or anyone) to go there?

For any sin. For any action which is not in step with God's holiness. Have you ever treated someone with contempt for them being different from you? Have you ever lied (even a white lie)? Have you ever cheated on anything? Have you ever stolen anything? Have you ever been selfish? Have you ever treated God's name flippantly or disrespectfully?

I know that I have done all of the above. If you have done even one, you have offended God's infinite holiness and purity. Justice demands SOMEONE must be punished for it. Will it be you, or will you let God take the punishment for you? The choice is yours.

 

Well, unless I missed something Alsharad, you will be on the next spit beside Occam and me, on the devils barbeque. If any sins is what it takes. I would rather take the punishment myself than let God take it, so I'm going fer sure, if the Lake of Fire, or Pit of Eternal Damnation exists....which I do not believe.

Here is my 'tongue in cheek' translation of any religious devotee's attempt to convert me.

I command you to change your personal spiritual beliefs immediately, and believe exactly whatever I decide is the correct interpretation of whichever one of the multitude of scriptures in the world that I say is the ONE TRUE RELIGION.
If you refuse, I am compelled to warn you, the most hideous tortures that the worst criminal minds that ever lived will be enacted upon your person for no less than a googleplex to the power of a googleplex millenia. That is a fairly long time, I might add.

The God of Abraham is the focus of three faiths, so in my view they should be best of friends.... which they are not, and even within each there is division and conflict.

I hope that all faiths eventually find their common ground.

 

So, the facts of history are plain. You have a man that lived. His folowers all said that they had seen Him alive AFTER He had been executed. They all died for claiming that they had seen Him and that He was therefore God. They had to believe their own claims, so one of two things happened: 1) Christ came back from the dead, therefore vindicating His claims to diety, or 2) there was some sort of mass confusion/hallucination. Something happened to change these people's mind.

Here is an alternative to consider. He was unconscious when taken down off the cross, knocked out by the sop. The Essenes were master herbalists, I have read, so that is very possible. Thus negating both of the former conclusions.
He was of royal Jewish blood, Rome tried to kill him, afterwards I would certainly have kept a low profile, and let everyone believe I had died.