Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Storm]

There are different 'levels' of "ignorance" here. What you can't do is assume total ignorance on others. If you understood why I ask some posters specific questions, you would already know that. I'm trying to figure out if the person claiming I'm 'wrong', has a basis to do so. So far, nada.

Then why did you confuse the issue by responding in that way to me telling Robert he doesn't get to declare RF an atheist free zone?

Because what you just said is wholly unrelated, and it's not because *I* assumed anything at all.

 

[Desert Snake]

Then why did you confuse the issue by responding in that way to me telling Robert he doesn't get to declare RF an atheist free zone?

Because what you just said is wholly unrelated, and it's not because *I* assumed anything at all.

He didn't do that.

 

[Storm]

He didn't do that.

OK, arguably not, but he did try to say it's 'our house,' which is equally wrong, and which is also really not his decision.

And it's still completely irrelevant to your last post.

 

[Sonofason]

@Sonofason
Actually, this isn't your house. This is a community in cyberspace. And that sort of response - trying to use the letter to defeat the spirit - is much more Pharisee than Christian.

If I were here as a matter of preaching the gospel, as Jesus has said, "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, preaching that "The kingdom of heaven is at hand", and if I were here to "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, (and to) cast out devils," perhaps I might agree that if my words are not received that I should depart from this city shaking the dust from my feet. Lucky it is for this city that that is not the case, for surely under such a circumstance, it would be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for this city.

No, I'm here to have fun, to discuss, and to debate religion in a city that was constructed for that very purpose.

When it is time for me to go, the moderators will let me know.

 

[Sonofason]

OK, arguably not, but he did try to say it's 'our house,' which is equally wrong, and which is also really not his decision.

And it's still completely irrelevant to your last post.

When I said that this is my house, I pretty much meant that this is my house. It was set up for people like me.
Other people live in this house as well, as do you apparently.
And you are welcome to stay, and so is he, so long as the moderators of this house agree.

 

[Storm]

When it is time for me to go, the moderators will let me know.

All I said (to you) was that this is cyberspace, not your house.

Meaning that we ALL need to be good guests.

I remind you that was before Robert Evans tried to stake some kind of claim based on believing in God. What I said in response to that was not directed at you.

 

[Storm]

When I said that this is my house, I pretty much meant that this is my house. It was set up for people like me.

Well, then. You're wrong, too. It was not set up for people like you. It was set up for everyone who wishes to discuss important topics.

Other people live in this house as well, as do you apparently

No, nobody lives here. It's cyberspace. Rex is the owner and founder (and an atheist), and we visit. You have no territorial rights whatsoever, and neither does anyone other than Rex. So be a good guest and stop acting like you own the place.

And you are welcome to stay, and so is he, so long as the moderators of this house agree.

That's not your call.

I will never understand people who barge into a long established community and somehow think that they have a say in who it's for.

 

[Sonofason]

All I said (to you) was that this is cyberspace, not your house.

Meaning that we ALL need to be good guests.

I remind you that was before Robert Evans tried to stake some kind of claim based on believing in God. What I said in response to that was not directed at you.

Of course, I do believe that we should all be respectful to one another in this house that was built for us.

 

[Storm]

Of course, I do believe that we should all be respectful to one another in this house that was built for us.

Then stop telling other guests it's yours.

 

[Sonofason]

Well, then. You're wrong, too. It was not set up for people like you. It was set up for everyone who wishes to discuss important topics.

Then it appears, as I have I believe I was suggesting that this house was constructed for you as well. Nevertheless, it is my house. Apparently, since you are here, discussing important topics as you say, it must have been set up for people like you. It seems this is your house too.

No, nobody lives here. It's cyberspace. Rex is the owner and founder (and an atheist), and we visit. You have no territorial rights whatsoever, and neither does anyone other than Rex. So be a good guest and stop acting like you own the place.

So it seems you like to think that the entire Bible is allegory, but you can't accept allegory when I speak. That is interesting.

That's not your call.

I said, "And you are welcome to stay, and so is he, so long as the moderators of this house agree."
I never said it was my call. If you didn't notice the first time, check it out again. I said it was the moderators call.

I will never understand people who barge into a long established community and somehow think that they have a say in who it's for.

And of course I will never understand people who have such difficulty with the human language.

 

[Dr. Strange]

We know plenty about God... he reveals it to us through his creation, even without spiritual discernment one can see that. We also know his son, and anyone who knows the son knows the Father.

To believe in God is through gnosis, God given. That is the Grace of God. Faith is the conviction of the person as the outer evidence of an inner change. Faith was instead of works. They were not telling them to believe in something they had no evidence for, that would have been ludicrous

Ok, I fully get that your faith assures you that there is God and that Jesus is God's Son. I get it when you say that anyone that knows the son knows the Father.

To believe in God is through faith. No belief can transcend that faith. Although faith and Grace are two sides of a coin they are totally different. What you call Grace has always been there from mankind's beginning. Jesus just made Grace evident and Christianity capitalized on Grace.

Gnosis, signifying a spiritual knowledge, a sense of mystical enlightenment or insight. Google

I've explored this from the NAB1970 footnotes already. So, here it is again.

John 1: 14; The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we have seen his glory: the glory of an only Son coming from the Father, filled with enduring love.

ff:
p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }
Ex.; John 1; In the beginning was the Word; the Word was in God's presence, and the Word was God. NAB1970.
ff: "1, 1-18: . . . Commentators are divided on whether the initial reference to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ is in 1,9 or 1,14." Ibid.
ff: "1, 9: The earlier versions make every man (instead of the light) the subject of coming into the world." Ibid.
ff: "1, 14: Made his dwelling: literally, "set up his tent, or tabernacle." In the Exodus the tabernacle or tent of meeting was the site of God's dwelling among men (Ex 25, 8f); now that site is the Word-made-flesh. Glory: the glory of God (the visible manifestation of his majesty in power), which once filled the tabernacle (Ex 40, 34) and the temple (1 Kgs 8, 10f.27), is now centered in Jesus. Filled with enduring love: It is not clear whether filled modifies glory or Word or only Son. The two words love and enduring (often translated "grace and truth") represent two Old Testament terms used to describe the dealings of the God of the covenant with Israel (Ex 34, 6); love signifying God's love in choosing Israel and his steadfast expression of that love in the covenant; enduring signifying his faithfulness to his covenant promises. Jesus is a new manifestation of God's covenant, enduring love, replacing the Old; cf v 16."

p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; }
John 1: 14:

God manifested in Jesus or that Jesus is the manifestation of God. Jesus is a new manifestation of God's covenant, "enduring love."


1 Timothy 3:16; "Wonderful, indeed, is the mystery of our faith, as we say in professing it: "He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the spirit; Seen by the angels; preached among the Gentiles, Believed in throughout the world, taken up into glory.""


Why then do believers find no fault in the Bible. Take 1 Timothy 3:16 and I apply your insistence on Jesus' divinity when I can interpret 3:16 to say: 1) "Mystery," "designates the secret that was hidden in divine wisdom during previous centuries and only revealed in Messianic times, i.e., that the redemption of all men is accomplished by Christ and is attained through union with Christ." JBC[57:21:9]. 2) "Flesh," "meaning human nature." 3) "Vindicated," [Justified] "meaning just," "[not] the usual Pauline meaning of purified from sin,"JBC[57:21:9]. 4) "Spirit," "The justice and divinity of Christ were manifested in a special way through the operation of the Holy Spirit in the glorious resurrection of Christ." JBC[57:22:16].


1 Timothy 3: 16: “3,14ff: . . . The care he must exercise over this community is required by the profound nature of Christianity. It centers in Christ, preexistent but appearing in human flesh; the goodness of his mortal existence was verified by the Holy Spirit; the mystery of his Person was revealed to the angels, announced to the Gentiles, and accepted by them in faith. He himself was returned (through his resurrection and ascension) to the divine glory that is properly his (v 16). . . . “


The manifestations of God are represented by the prophets. Jesus represented a manifestation of God, as a prophet, in the "flesh," as the "mystery," justified by the Spirit (God's "hidden divine wisdom") "taken up into glory" ("the visible manifestation" NAB1970, John 1: 14.)


Jesus, not Jesus the Christ but, Jesus as the Christ (Tillich), a manifestation of God.


"The many different meanings of the term "Word" [six] are all united in one meaning, namely, "God manifest"--manifest in himself, in creation, in the history of revelation, in the final revelation, in the Bible, in the words of the church and her members. "God manifest"--the mystery of the divine abyss expressing itself through the divine Logos--this is the meaning of the symbol, the "Word of God." Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Vol. I, p. 159.

Christianity makes Jesus divine but in reality what Jesus manifested was the "Word of God." The manifestation is Jesus as the Christ.

 

[Sonofason]

Then stop telling other guests it's yours.

I live in another house as well, which is located here in New Jersey. It is a great deal dissimilar to this house, for it is constructed of wood and cement. This other house that I'm referring to belongs to me. It is my house.

Interesting enough, there are three other people who live in my house, and they consider it to be their house as well. And indeed, they are correct. This is not only my house, but it is also my wife's house. This house also belongs to my children. It is their house as well.

If I lived in an apartment, and even if I did not own the apartment, I could certainly tell people that this is my apartment. They might ask for some clarification as to whether or not I own this apartment, but the onus of discovering such greater clarity is on them, to ask?

 

[Sapiens]

Bible verses are evidence. And I expect no atheistic badgering of believers in turn.

No, if you want to be taken seriously and not as just another waste of time and bandwidth you need to get over the idea that bible verses are evidence of anything except what it says in the bible. The use of bible verses to prove that other bible verses are true is bad case of circular reasoning and thus a logical fallacy. This is the way it works:

The usual Christian excuse that I've seen is to try and slice the bible up into separate piece and make the claim that one piece supports the other and vice versa (e.g., Matthew use to prove Genesis (Matthew 19:3–6, cf. Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:24); Paul used to prove Luke (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7); Peter used to prove Paul (2 Peter 3:15–16)).

There is a problem with this approach, the Old Testament was generally available when the New Testament was written, the contents of the NT fit the contents of the OT. Any sequential set of writings on similar topics would suffer from similar problems. In science it's called "references," and experiments provide the new data required to destroy the problem circularity. In philosophy and mathematics where experiments are not performed, "equivalent statements" are proved from the same set of axioms which breaks the circle.

If someone is trying to prove a section of the Bible with a different section of the Bible and does not have evidence outside the Bible, all that they have done is establish that the biblical sections are equivalent under the same set of axioms. It does not matter what the actual axioms are. The validity of the axioms must still be validated independently to go beyond simply establishing equivalence.

(with thanks to rationlwiki.com)

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, it's not. Atheists are completely welcome here. They always have been. People who say things like that, otoh, don't last.

No one is saying they are not allowed here, nor that they are not welcome. It is just that is our subject, not theirs, therefore our house and not theirs.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I have yet to see any.

And even if every post was well written and insightful (where are those again?), he still wouldn't have the right to declare that atheists don't belong here. The founder of the forum is an atheist, for God's sake. If it's anyone's 'house,' it's his. Who do you people think you are to tell him and his guests to leave?

As for "I don't know, but you're wrong," I'm pretty sure I haven't said any such thing.

But I'd prefer someone capable of admitting ignorance and spotting total bs to those who spout the bs. Any day.

Somewhat over the top I think

 

[Storm]

Then it appears, as I have I believe I was suggesting that this house was constructed for you as well. Nevertheless, it is my house. Apparently, since you are here, discussing important topics as you say, it must have been set up for people like you. It seems this is your house too.

No. It's Rex's house. Stop saying it's yours.

So it seems you like to think that the entire Bible is allegory, but you can't accept allegory when I speak. That is interesting.

No, actually, I don't think it's allegory. I think it's something entirely different, which frankly, I don't think you would understand.

That said, I've been playing along with your sad little metaphor (not an allegory) this whole time.

I said, "And you are welcome to stay, and so is he, so long as the moderators of this house agree."
I never said it was my call. If you didn't notice the first time, check it out again. I said it was the moderators call.

Yes, you paid lip service to mod authority. That makes it no less presumptuous to tell people they're welcome to stay in a community you insist is yours, let alone someone who's been a member seven times as long as you.

And of course I will never understand people who have such difficulty with the human language

The human language? Funny, I didn't think there was one language for humans. What sort of creatures speak the other languages?

Anyway, you really don't have a leg to stand on when you can't even wrap your brain around what it means to say "this is mine," when in fact, it belongs to someone else entirely.

 

[Storm]

No one is saying they are not allowed here, nor that they are not welcome. It is just that is our subject, not theirs, therefore our house and not theirs.

No, it isn't.

Somewhat over the top I think

You would.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, if you want to be taken seriously and not as just another waste of time and bandwidth you need to get over the idea that bible verses are evidence of anything except what it says in the bible. The use of bible verses to prove that other bible verses are true is bad case of circular reasoning and thus a logical fallacy. This is the way it works:

The usual Christian excuse that I've seen is to try and slice the bible up into separate piece and make the claim that one piece supports the other and vice versa (e.g., Matthew use to prove Genesis (Matthew 19:3–6, cf. Genesis 1:27, Genesis 2:24); Paul used to prove Luke (1 Timothy 5:18, cf. Luke 10:7); Peter used to prove Paul (2 Peter 3:15–16)).

There is a problem with this approach, the Old Testament was generally available when the New Testament was written, the contents of the NT fit the contents of the OT. Any sequential set of writings on similar topics would suffer from similar problems. In science it's called "references," and experiments provide the new data required to destroy the problem circularity. In philosophy and mathematics where experiments are not performed, "equivalent statements" are proved from the same set of axioms which breaks the circle.

If someone is trying to prove a section of the Bible with a different section of the Bible and does not have evidence outside the Bible, all that they have done is establish that the biblical sections are equivalent under the same set of axioms. It does not matter what the actual axioms are. The validity of the axioms must still be validated independently to go beyond simply establishing equivalence.

(with thanks to rationlwiki.com)

And you need to get rid of the idea that linking to something else means you are right... haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, it isn't.


You would.

ha ha .... Okay, whatever you say.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Then why did you confuse the issue by responding in that way to me telling Robert he doesn't get to declare RF an atheist free zone?

Because what you just said is wholly unrelated, and it's not because *I* assumed anything at all.

But you misunderstood .. grossly. No matter, move on.