|
On October 04 2013 16:47 sam!zdat wrote:
i dare you to go watch the lectures
coincidentally ironmansc i just finished watching all the lectures and would definitely recommend them. if you are sincere in your desire to better god through study of the bible i suggest replacing your nightly bible study program w a lecture from that yale series until youve watched them all. otherwise you are shutting yourself off from real criticism. and who knows maybe your faith will comw out better and stronger for it
|
According to philosophy, what is truth?
|
not sure why you are asking that or why you are changing the subject.
|
haha "according to philosophy." I dunno man lemme go ask him
|
On October 05 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "according to philosophy." I dunno man lemme go ask him
You seem to rest on philosophy being supreme when it comes to intellect and choosing your way of life (or faith). You say that someone (namely, the author) with philosophical reasoning couldn't have been a low-life, uneducated follower/disciple of Christ. In other words, you claim otherwise that if you are therefore philosophically educated, you "know better" than those with zero reasoning who say they are followers of Christ as if they had nothing better to believe in. Why then do you call the book of John a false account if indeed it uses philosophical wording? John, through philosophical teaching, emphasizes Jesus's power and that he is indeed the Son of God, and was even an eyewitness himself. He is pointing out the deity of Christ - the only source of eternal life. You, however, have said that you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That belief/statement alone is enough for you to despise any and all spiritual truths that the Bible has to offer, let alone the book of John. Does that mean philosophy is not all that it's cracked up to be if you disagree with the very reasoning that you're telling me to "go learn?" Also, are you not a sectarian yourself by constantly referencing some random Yale professor as if he has all the answers? Did you not say earlier in the thread that there is no truth in religion? If there is no truth in religion, then not even a true "falsehood" could be identified regardless of facts or any sort of evidence. What makes John false then and why? You've imploded your own argument.
|
On October 05 2013 16:30 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "according to philosophy." I dunno man lemme go ask him You, however, have said that you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That belief/statement alone is enough for you to despise any and all spiritual truths that the Bible has to offer
completely and utterly false
edit: also, can we all take a moment to reflect on the total inanity of the phrase "some random Yale professor." he never claims to have "all the answers" nor have I claimed that of him. is he one of the pre-eminent scholars in new testament? yes.
watch the lectures you philistine, you might actually learn something
not going to bother to respond to your incoherent ramblings about "truth" and how my argument "implodes itself." you don't have the first clue what you are talking about, and you think "philosophy" is some singular thing that exists. good grief. for example this sentence is entirely incoherent: On October 05 2013 16:30 IronManSC wrote:
If there is no truth in religion, then not even a true "falsehood" could be identified regardless of facts or any sort of evidence. .
|
On October 05 2013 16:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 16:30 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "according to philosophy." I dunno man lemme go ask him You, however, have said that you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That belief/statement alone is enough for you to despise any and all spiritual truths that the Bible has to offer completely and utterly false edit: also, can we all take a moment to reflect on the total inanity of the phrase "some random Yale professor." watch the lectures you philistine, you might actually learn something
On October 05 2013 16:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 16:30 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "according to philosophy." I dunno man lemme go ask him You, however, have said that you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That belief/statement alone is enough for you to despise any and all spiritual truths that the Bible has to offer completely and utterly false edit: also, can we all take a moment to reflect on the total inanity of the phrase "some random Yale professor." watch the lectures you philistine, you might actually learn something
If you do not have Jesus as your Lord and Savior, then you do not have the Holy Spirit in you, and if you don't have the Holy Spirit, then you cannot understand truth in spiritual context. It's a fundamental of the Christian faith that every true believer in Christ knows, believes, and understands very plainly, because the Holy Spirit makes it known to us. Whether i've said that harsh or not is beside the point. The Bible tells it plainly:
"But it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God's deep secrets. No one can know a person's thoughts except that person's own spirit, and no one can know God's thoughts except God's own Spirit. And we have received God's Spirit (not the world's spirit), so we can know the wonderful things God has freely given us.
When we tell you these things, we do not use words that come from human wisdom. Instead we speak words given to us by the Spirit, using the Spirit's words to explain spiritual truths. But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means. Those who are spiritual can evaluate all things, but they themselves cannot be evaluated by others" - 1 Corinthians 2:10-15
Also I like how you completely voided the rest of my previous post and just say "false! watch the lecture you anti-intellectual philistine!" The lecture, based on my understanding (and rushing because I had errands to run) was talking about the philosophical style of writing. Whether or not I interpreted the lecture correctly, I do want to ask a question: How does a different, or more "intelligent" style of writing omit truth of Scripture when the author, John or some random "greek" that you say, proclaims it himself?
|
you didn't even load the lecture liar
|
On October 05 2013 16:57 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 16:30 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 16:01 sam!zdat wrote:
haha "according to philosophy." I dunno man lemme go ask him You, however, have said that you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God. That belief/statement alone is enough for you to despise any and all spiritual truths that the Bible has to offer completely and utterly false edit: also, can we all take a moment to reflect on the total inanity of the phrase "some random Yale professor." he never claims to have "all the answers" nor have I claimed that of him. is he one of the pre-eminent scholars in new testament? yes. watch the lectures you philistine, you might actually learn something not going to bother to respond to your incoherent ramblings about "truth" and how my argument "implodes itself." you don't have the first clue what you are talking about, and you think "philosophy" is some singular thing that exists. good grief. for example this sentence is entirely incoherent: Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 16:30 IronManSC wrote:
If there is no truth in religion, then not even a true "falsehood" could be identified regardless of facts or any sort of evidence. .
How is it completely and utterly false? In what way?
What is "entirely incoherent" about my last quote and why?
I don't have a clue of what i'm talking about? What clue am I missing? What gives it away that philosophy is a "singular thing that exists?" What does that even mean?
You also say I disrespect "historical context" multiple times and that it's "blasphemy." What specific historical context am I disrespecting? How is that blasphemy if, by definition, it is attributing God's power to satan and/or profane talk toward God.
I did not say you claimed the professor had all the answers, but you referenced him so many times as if he had all the answers to this argument.
You are doing more attacking than answering.
|
you think the spiritual content of christianity is some ridiculous myth about how jesus is the son of god and is going to make you live forever because you believe this absurd thing? that's what you think is the sum total of the value of your tradition? god, that's so disrespectful
the historical context that you ignore is THE ENTIRE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE ANCIENT WORLD
none of this stuff is real. if you are going to make it matter in the modern world, if you ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR FAITH, you are going to need to make it matter EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REAL. otherwise it is useless and you are nothing but a delusional fanatic of a dying cult
User was temp banned for this post.
|
It's a shame how this thread turns into another "evidence bro or GTFO thread". Tolerance and respect is a beautiful thing, learn it.
|
i'm not sure which boggles me more
the idea that religion has to battle science
or the idea that asking for logic / evidence is seen as disrespectful
|
On October 05 2013 04:52 Awesomedrifter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:13 Hryul wrote:On October 05 2013 02:40 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 John wasn't written until around 80-90 A.D. Are you telling me in all that spare time he couldn't have increased his knowledge? I want to know what your whole point is here. Are you trying to prove that he was so philosophically educated that therefore he wasn't a follower of Christ, that only followers are uneducated no-lifes? Or are you saying the Gospel of John is simply false because he focused more on the power and deity of Christ and not his life? You do know that it's a slight problem, because the life expectation in the 1st century wasn't 80 years. This makes it unlikely that it was the Apostle John. But it could just be another test of faith since god moves in mysterious ways. You do know life expetancy is an average and there will always be outliers. Further more the life expectancy was brought down from high infant mortality. Its quire possible for someone to live to 80 years in the 1st century, although it would be rarer then it is today.
I didn't claim it to be impossible. If I read this correctly, the life expectation of a 10 y.o. was ~45-47. So 80 would still be a huge outlier!
|
|
|
On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
you think the spiritual content of christianity is some ridiculous myth about how jesus is the son of god and is going to make you live forever because you believe this absurd thing? that's what you think is the sum total of the value of your tradition? god, that's so disrespectful
You receive God-given faith when you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for your sins. When you believe, you receive the Holy Spirit, who comforts you, guides you, teaches you, and assures you of eternal life. We live by faith, not by sight - trusting God in who he is, what he did for us on the cross, and what he promised to those who love him. As plainly as I can make it, if you accept Jesus, you have eternal life, so yes he will let you live forever because that was God's original plan from the beginning. That's why he made us in the first place: to live with God, but we rebelled by sinning. Therefore, God, who is perfect, laid down his life to pay our death penalty for sin, and through Christ we find forgiveness of sins and can be made right with God through Jesus. God does not want anyone to perish, but wants everyone to live, so he made a way and is offering it to everybody. Why do we Christians do what we do (life of gratitude)? Because of what Christ did for us. Why do we Christians love Jesus? Because he first loved us.
"When were were utterly helpless, Christ came at just the right time and died for us sinners. Now, most people would not be willing to die for an upright person, though someone might perhaps be willing to die for a person who is especially good. But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners." - Romans 5:6-8
This is the context behind spiritual truth, but hey I don't know about what kind of sandals they wore, the names of the Pharisees, or the customs of that day, so I guess all of this is invalid because I am somehow "disrespecting historical context."
On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
the historical context that you ignore is THE ENTIRE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE ANCIENT WORLD
Again I ask, what specific context am I ignoring? "The entire historical context of the entire ancient world" is not a specific answer. You're just spouting out insults. What did I ignore or disrespect and in what regard?
On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
none of this stuff is real. if you are going to make it matter in the modern world, if you ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR FAITH, you are going to need to make it matter EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REAL. otherwise it is useless and you are nothing but a delusional fanatic of a dying cult
If it's not real, then what's there to live for? Christians are being slaughtered for their faith and have been for centuries (even today in Kenya and Pakistan lately) -- would you die for something you knew wasn't true? "Dear friends, don't be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot do any more to you after that. But i'll tell you whom to fear. Fear God, who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell. Yes, he's the one to fear." - Luke 12:4-5. There's a bit of history of Christians dying for their faith when held at the verge of death.
Faith is only useless if you don't practice it (Check out James 2:14-26). How do you know I'm not making it matter in my life and with the people around me? Can you think for one second that mabye there is more to Christianity than just being a good person and understanding the history of the Bible?
See you in a week hopefully.
|
On October 06 2013 02:17 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
none of this stuff is real. if you are going to make it matter in the modern world, if you ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR FAITH, you are going to need to make it matter EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REAL. otherwise it is useless and you are nothing but a delusional fanatic of a dying cult If it's not real, then what's there to live for? Christians are being slaughtered for their faith and have been for centuries (even today in Kenya and Pakistan lately) -- would you die for something you knew wasn't true? "Dear friends, don't be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot do any more to you after that. But i'll tell you whom to fear. Fear God, who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell. Yes, he's the one to fear." - Luke 12:4-5. There's a bit of history of Christians dying for their faith when held at the verge of death.
People all throughout history have sacrificed their lives for ideas/beliefs which they personally believed to be true, but weren't necessarily actually true. Case in point - every martyr for every other religion throughout human history, combatants on both sides of every religious war (e.g. Crusades), extremist Muslim suicide bombers, or soldiers influenced by wartime government propaganda. Clearly not all of these people could have known that their beliefs were true seeing as how every religion cannot possibly be true (and some of the propaganda is provably false) - rather, they believed that they knew that their beliefs were true, which is simply an extension of the actual belief itself.
Also, does there have to be something to live for? Personally I think "not being dead" is a perfectly valid reason to want to be alive.
On October 06 2013 02:17 IronManSC wrote:
You receive God-given faith when you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for your sins. When you believe, you receive the Holy Spirit, who comforts you, guides you, teaches you, and assures you of eternal life.
How is this in any way distinguishable from your own thoughts/conscience?
|
On October 06 2013 16:33 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 02:17 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 17:28 sam!zdat wrote:
none of this stuff is real. if you are going to make it matter in the modern world, if you ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR FAITH, you are going to need to make it matter EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REAL. otherwise it is useless and you are nothing but a delusional fanatic of a dying cult If it's not real, then what's there to live for? Christians are being slaughtered for their faith and have been for centuries (even today in Kenya and Pakistan lately) -- would you die for something you knew wasn't true? "Dear friends, don't be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot do any more to you after that. But i'll tell you whom to fear. Fear God, who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell. Yes, he's the one to fear." - Luke 12:4-5. There's a bit of history of Christians dying for their faith when held at the verge of death. People all throughout history have sacrificed their lives for ideas/beliefs which they personally believed to be true, but weren't necessarily actually true. Case in point - every martyr for every other religion throughout human history, combatants on both sides of every religious war (e.g. Crusades), extremist Muslim suicide bombers, or soldiers influenced by wartime government propaganda. Clearly not all of these people could have known that their beliefs were true seeing as how every religion cannot possibly be true (and some of the propaganda is provably false) - rather, they believed that they knew that their beliefs were true, which is simply an extension of the actual belief itself. Also, does there have to be something to live for? Personally I think "not being dead" is a perfectly valid reason to want to be alive. Show nested quote +On October 06 2013 02:17 IronManSC wrote:
You receive God-given faith when you believe that Jesus is the Son of God and that he died for your sins. When you believe, you receive the Holy Spirit, who comforts you, guides you, teaches you, and assures you of eternal life.
How is this in any way distinguishable from your own thoughts/conscience?
My point with the death thing was that despite how odd Christianity is to people, and how "blind faith" it may appear to others, there's more to the faith than what you see. The secular world says you have to learn it and see it to believe. It's about believing and then seeing and learning. As previously mentioned, the faith itself is God-given. We don't just believe it and then let our carnal mind take over. It's not of this world, and it's not carnal, it's supernatural.
|
On October 05 2013 21:58 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 04:52 Awesomedrifter wrote:On October 05 2013 04:13 Hryul wrote:On October 05 2013 02:40 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 John wasn't written until around 80-90 A.D. Are you telling me in all that spare time he couldn't have increased his knowledge? I want to know what your whole point is here. Are you trying to prove that he was so philosophically educated that therefore he wasn't a follower of Christ, that only followers are uneducated no-lifes? Or are you saying the Gospel of John is simply false because he focused more on the power and deity of Christ and not his life? You do know that it's a slight problem, because the life expectation in the 1st century wasn't 80 years. This makes it unlikely that it was the Apostle John. But it could just be another test of faith since god moves in mysterious ways. You do know life expetancy is an average and there will always be outliers. Further more the life expectancy was brought down from high infant mortality. Its quire possible for someone to live to 80 years in the 1st century, although it would be rarer then it is today. I didn't claim it to be impossible. If I read this correctly, the life expectation of a 10 y.o. was ~45-47. So 80 would still be a huge outlier!
I didn't realize it was still that low. My point was that its still a "realistic" life time. We are talking about a book that claims people lived for 100s of years before, after all. I don't contend the point that its unlikely the author John and apostle John are probably 2 different people. I didn't think the life expectancy argument was as good as it was though.
|
On October 07 2013 00:52 Awesomedrifter wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2013 21:58 Hryul wrote:On October 05 2013 04:52 Awesomedrifter wrote:On October 05 2013 04:13 Hryul wrote:On October 05 2013 02:40 IronManSC wrote:On October 05 2013 02:21 sam!zdat wrote:nobody with the social status of the disciples of christ would have possibly ever learned to write and philosophize like an educated greek, that's just ignorance about the ancient world if you think that is possible. there's not a land grant university in 1st century galilee brah. nobody of that culture and social strata would have ever thought to say something like "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with god, and the word was god." that's some straight up greek stuff man tolle lege tolle lege: http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-11 John wasn't written until around 80-90 A.D. Are you telling me in all that spare time he couldn't have increased his knowledge? I want to know what your whole point is here. Are you trying to prove that he was so philosophically educated that therefore he wasn't a follower of Christ, that only followers are uneducated no-lifes? Or are you saying the Gospel of John is simply false because he focused more on the power and deity of Christ and not his life? You do know that it's a slight problem, because the life expectation in the 1st century wasn't 80 years. This makes it unlikely that it was the Apostle John. But it could just be another test of faith since god moves in mysterious ways. You do know life expetancy is an average and there will always be outliers. Further more the life expectancy was brought down from high infant mortality. Its quire possible for someone to live to 80 years in the 1st century, although it would be rarer then it is today. I didn't claim it to be impossible. If I read this correctly, the life expectation of a 10 y.o. was ~45-47. So 80 would still be a huge outlier! I didn't realize it was still that low. My point was that its still a "realistic" life time. We are talking about a book that claims people lived for 100s of years before, after all. I don't contend the point that its unlikely the author John and apostle John are probably 2 different people. I didn't think the life expectancy argument was as good as it was though.
You are definitely right: If you approach the bible from a faithful PoV, it's a small feat to make John 80 years old while there were people over 900 years old before him.
But now i'm curious to see the standard deviation of those numbers (if they exist), to know if it's really that strong of an argument.
|
Whether it be religion, pro-gaming, w/e, I have great respect for people who have the passion to place that above all else and being humble about it. I believe that builds character, and most people don't see that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
