There's no other option for you.Originally Posted by LandLord
There's no other option for you.
Last edited by rinselberg; 02-10-2008 at 06:16 PM.
Says Who?
"Always laugh when you can. It is a cheap medicine"
Lord Byron
Take a photo tour of Cape Cod and the Islands!
www.capecodphotoalbum.com
Do you believe that God would send a messenger that would deceive people by pretending to be God Himself?
Do you think God would send a messenger that would think he was God when he actually wasn't?
If you answer No to the above questions, then I proved my point.
If you answer Yes to the above questions, then we don't worship the same God.
God says the first. Logic says the second.
LandLord: Do you believe that God would send a messenger that would deceive people by pretending to be God Himself?
- No
LandLord: Do you think [that] God would send a messenger that would think he was God when he actually wasn't?
- No
From the standpoint of the many around the world who do not accept the literal divinity of Christ as either certain, or the divine inspiration of his message as unique (like atheists; followers of Mohammed, Buddha, Solus Invictus, ...; also, Jews), I disagree with the proposition that a "No" to both of these questions can demonstrate that anything that has been posted is a (valid) "point".
It's implicit in Landlord's proposition that God sent Christ as a messenger. I think that excludes the reality of Free Will; i.e. the possibility that Christ undertook the role of presenting himself as a divine messenger by an act of human initiative, volition or invention.
Did Jesus ever assert that he (himself) was God, or directly born of God? Or was his divinity actually attributed to him by his converts? Isn't that something of a small bone of contention among the many who profess Christianity? Is it possible for a Christian to believe that Christ's message was divinely inspired, and that God sent Christ to the world as a messenger, and that Jesus never asserted or manifested in any way that he believed that he (himself) was God or directly born of God? That second "test" question... is it possible? I think the answer is "Yes".
It's regrettable that there are not more posters to comment on the text of the Koran and more generally, on their ideas about Islam and its followers; in particular, the concept of Sharia and the concept of an "Islamic state".
To my mind, a religious fundamentalist is someone who professes that their faith is founded on a literal reading of a text--Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Koran, ...; as opposed to someone who reads a text and tries to find an underlying meaning or truth that is more universal and more lasting than the text itself, which (in the case of scriptures) presents the possibilities of wordings that are archaic or that were meant to be pondered as suggestions or metaphor--not literal prescriptions. Jihad, for example. Only an Islamic fundamentalist (IMO) would profess that jihad encompasses the possibilities of coercion or war in a literal sense. And only an Islamic extremist would actually try to translate such an idea into action.
Last edited by rinselberg; 02-17-2008 at 08:49 PM.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
If you're interested in another point of view, there are people much more knowledgable then anyone on this board who have debated the subject and come to different conclusions, here's one debate below if you care to find out.
http://www.shabirally.com/play.asp?f...ALLY_COSTA.wmv
Thanks for answering.Not sure why you used quotation marks on the word "point," but do you mean to say that Jesus was other than God, Liar or Lunatic? If so, what?
Yes, that's quite obvious if you've read the bible.Actually, the answer is No because what you are describing is called "Non-Christian." So, no, a Christian could not believe that Christ was not God. Could a Jew believe that Hitler was God? Could a Hindu believe that Tony Robbins is God? With all due respect, for someone who sounds very intelligent, you seem to be very uninformed about Christianity.
You folks is gittin a whole lot betta bout capitalizing God, Christ, Christmas,,, But Bible should also be capitalized.
Chip
Let's hope we extend the same courtesy to everyone.
I was misinformed
--Rick (Humphrey Bogart) in "Casablanca" (1942)
That's not Bogart (you probably already knew that..) but John Dominic Crossan of the Jesus Seminar.
I'm not well informed about Christianity, although I suspect that I'm not as under-informed as some may estimate.
If the only other reaction to my post was the posting (braheem24) of a link to the audio recording of a discussion among scholars concerning Jesus and the Koran, then I'm completely satisfied. It was posted immediately after my post, so I feel that I deserve some credit for that--regardless of what the poster (braheem24) was thinking about when he responded.
What's with the "lizard" avatar? It's the question that's always been at the back of your mind, whether you realize it or not. Find out by reviewing OptiBoard: A Changing of the Guard ...
Last edited by rinselberg; 03-23-2008 at 04:49 AM.
I agree, of course it is possible. Christians are hardly unified in what they believe. There are various forms of Christians who do not believe Jesus was God... of course, other Christians simply dismiss them as not being Christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism
It gets to a point where everything then becomes a word game. The generally accepted definition of Christian includes Jesus as God. Next we will hear about Cannibal Christians or Spagetti Monster Christians or Buddha-Catholic-Satanists. It still won't change Christianity.
Landlord: You say that the generally accepted definition of Christian [belief] is the acceptance of Jesus as God (or an earthly manifestation of God) and not merely an ordinary man (ordinary, in a scientific or biological sense) with a message of divine inspiration.
What are your sources? What persons or texts would you offer to skeptics?
If your list of sources is no more (and no less; but no more in numbers) than the New Testament, this suggests to me that you are a Christian fundamentalist--as I understand that word: "Fundamentalist".
I'm not a fundamentalist.
I was going to say that I am not even an "atheist fundamentalist", but I have to pause: Is that a contradiction in words? What would constitute an atheist fundamentalist? Maybe someone will have a thought about that.
I wonder where you are going with all of these posts that you've been recording on some of these religious or faith-related topics. Are you something of an evangelist? A proselytizer?
I'm just having some recreation here. Some fun. If I had to summarize the meaning of my OptiBoard posts--the whole lot of them, including the ones in the professional forums--I would call it an exercise in "personal branding". If I could figure out how to make money out of it, I would! I guess it's just a hobby.
An afterthought: I'm more impressed with "practice" than "belief". Maybe what I've been describing is a "Christian practice", as distinguished from a Christian faith or credence.
What's with the "lizard" avatar? It's the question that's always been at the back of your mind, whether you realize it or not. Find out by reviewing OptiBoard: A Changing of the Guard ...
Last edited by rinselberg; 02-17-2008 at 08:48 PM.
Are you asking for my source that Jesus is God or my source that Christians believe Jesus is God?
I'm also not a fundamentalist.
You could say I'm on a lifelong journey to strengthen my faith.
LandLord: I acknowledge your question (about sources). I am "cashing in my chips" ... "calling it a thread" ... "foldin' 'em". At least until my thoughts find a new direction. So I don't want to respond directly to your question, but I do acknowledge it as a valid question.
Thanks for your part in this discussion.
Last edited by rinselberg; 02-17-2008 at 08:47 PM.
Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...
One last thing, rinselberg. I like your approach to 'personal branding.'
I can't help but wonder -- if you're good at personal branding in an online forum -- surely, you must be good at business branding in the real world.
Obama and Clinton are also good at personal branding. Everyone knows that Obama stands for "change" and Clinton stands for "experience." What do the other candidates stand for? Not an easy answer is it? Is it a coincidence? I think not.
I think by definition they would not be "Christians". These days I hardly say yes to that term because it can mean so much, it must be defined. That Jesus is God in the flesh is not an area of compromise. To understand that Jesus himself made that clear in the Gospels when read from the Jewish perspective is quite clear.
They are not forms of "christians" who deny that, they just use the same word to classify themselves. The title "Christian" has about as much meaning these days as the cross does around a person's neck, just a symbol of nothing very particular. If you ask me, "are you a christian"? I would reply, "what do you mean by that"?
Here is a bit of Justin Martyr, dated around 150-160 A.D.
This shows that those who live soon after the events of the Gospels believed like what is written in them. Justin would have lived in a time when those who knew the eyewitnesses would have been around and could have contested with what was being written and said if it conflicted. There is good record outside of the bible itself that people believed in the resurrection from the earliest stages of the faith.
"CHAPTER I.--THE SELF-EVIDENCING POWER OF TRUTH.
THE word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be. But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he who requires proof of this is like one who wishes it demonstrated why the things that appear to the senses do appear. For the test of those things which are received through the reason, is sense; but of sense itself there is no test beyond itself. As then we bring those things which reason hunts after, to sense, and by it judge what kind of things they are, whether the things spoken be true or false, and then sit in judgment no longer, giving full credit to its decision; so also we refer all that is said regarding men and the world to the truth, and by it judge whether it be worthless or no. But the utterances of truth we judge by no separate test, giving full credit to itself. And God, the Father of the universe, who is the perfect intelligence, is the truth. And the Word, being His Son, came to us, having put on flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, giving to us in Himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards. And this is Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord. He, therefore, is Himself both the faith and the proof of Himself and of all things. Wherefore those who follow Him, and know Him, having faith in Him as their proof, shall rest in Him. But since the adversary does not cease to resist many, and uses many and divers arts to ensnare them, that he may seduce the faithful from their faith, and that he may prevent the faithless from believing, it seems to me necessary that we also, being armed with the invulnerable doctrines of the faith, do battle against him in behalf of the weak."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...urrection.html
In one of the recent political threads, this same issue was raised when discussing Mitt Romney who is a Mormon. I answered this way:
I do agree with you that if one person is curious about what another believes, he or she needs to be more specific than to simply ask "Are you a Christian?"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks