Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No it doesn't. If it did, the council at Nicea wouldn't have come to the conclusion they did. When it comes to biblical exegesis, we ought to be wary of words like "obvious" and "clear." It's usually a sign that the one using those words hasn't done her or his homework.
Why don't you ask the author of the Gospel of John that question. Perhaps if you understood the historical context and the schools of thought regarding what the Logos meant culturally, then you might be able to ask more informed questions, rather than simply assuming since it escapes your style of logic, it therefore must be nonsense. "I don't get it", does not equate to foolishness. Only saying "I don't get it, therefore it is foolishness", is foolishness.
You apparently did not read the words you quoted from me. I said clearly, "You support relying on using your logic and reason, as opposed to penetrating the Mystery of Spirit beyond your reason." The words "beyond reason", and "Mystery", have true meaning. And it's meaning does not violate reason, but in fact surpasses it.
That's totally a circular argument! Surely, you can see this?
There is actually truth to this, but I wonder based on your response above just how much of that truth you understand.
Why don't you ask the author of the Gospel of John that question. Perhaps if you understood the historical context and the schools of thought regarding what the Logos meant culturally, then you might be able to ask more informed questions, rather than simply assuming since it escapes your style of logic, it therefore must be nonsense. "I don't get it", does not equate to foolishness. Only saying "I don't get it, therefore it is foolishness", is foolishness.
So what do you know of the use of the term Logos from the time period in which the Gospel John was written? Anything?
You apparently did not read the words you quoted from me. I said clearly, "You support relying on using your logic and reason, as opposed to penetrating the Mystery of Spirit beyond your reason." The words "beyond reason", and "Mystery", have true meaning. And it's meaning does not violate reason, but in fact surpasses it.
Don't take my word for that. Let's turn to a really, really rational man I'm sure you've heard of:
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive formsthis knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.Oh but no! The neo-positivists have the true gift of insight!
- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies
That's totally a circular argument! Surely, you can see this?
BTW, do you have prove God doesn't exist in order to make a positive statement like this? Or is this a statement of faith?
There is actually truth to this, but I wonder based on your response above just how much of that truth you understand.
Rome didn't begin to become a Christian superpower until Constantine approved Xy as the state religion in 313 c.e. Paul was writing about Jesus as early as the 40's c.e.
Prove it.
Then why use such "bull$pit" as an argument?
According to... whom? Descartes? Nothing but horse-and-buggy speculation.
Oh! You mean arguments much like you're using here?
Christianity would be the former. Your "pineal gland" thingy would be the latter.
The Q sayings are from as early as the 40's c.e. The synoptics are all before the year 100 c.e. And they certainly exist.
None of this is proof. Simply names. Little is known about the pineal gland, except that it produces melatonin. Metaphysical similarities of many kinds are found all over the world. It proves nothing, except to show that the human mind works as it works, no matter where one hails from.
Really? That's the best you've got? Conspiracy-theory web sites? And you call the bible "bull$pit?"
Clearly, your knowledge is gleaned from reading Internet sites filled by the speculations of mythicists and "Bible debunkers". It's funny to me, that you actually have no idea what or how I believe, and you go this path with me.
This is silly. Of course there is brain activity in mystical experience. I have no issue with that. That doesn't mean "It's all in the brain", anymore that when you experience love with another person "it's all the brain", even though there are areas triggered in it that generate that experience. This is poor reasoning on your part.
You came to argue scripture, and no nothing of it's history or contexts, or really anything other than just shallow propaganda of so-called skeptics. Ungrounded? Your not addressing anything at all, but just repeating skeptic arguments.
You consider yourself a mystic? And you have such a narrow perspective as this? You don't sound like a mystic based on this level or rhetoric your spouting.
