Who is Claiming that Humans are Gods

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellous, guess what?!?!?! I'm a Christian now! You know why? I met your God, and he told me stuff, and did a miracle! The Holy Spirit filled my essence, and what I write has come directly from God! The book of Druidus:




Seriously, Angellous, just because it's in a book that says it is true doesn't make it so.

Goodness, I am soooo glad that you are here to clear things up for me. I am so glad that you made up your own Scripture and now as a naiive gullible Christian I can just swallow it like a lemming. Give me a break.

Perhaps you are incapable of rationalizing that Christians have more intellectual depth than simply reading a book and believing it - like reading a comic strip and constructing a serious religion off of it. Perhaps you are able to intellectually interact with this, and perhaps not.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Druidus you continue to be one of my favorite posters here, and you just described my view of God. Why wouldn't a God that wants us all to be happy have an appreciation for the silly little things that do that. Personally I think God has a sense of humor, but always tells those really bad, corny jokes.

AG, find me absolute proof of the Garden of Eden, find me The Ark, find me the Ark of the Covenant. Then I'll start to consider your Bible as possibly higher than the Quaran or any other book.

If there were absolute proof for metaphysical reality, then every rational person would believe. Obviously, you are well aware of the fact that there is no absolute proof of the Garden of Eden, find me The Ark, and the Ark of the Covenant. If there were absolute proof that these objects or places existed, it would not be convincing proof that God exists, and you could go merrily on you way in your belief that God has a sense of humor, but always tells those really bad, corny jokes.

There is absolute proof that the writers of the Bible interacted responsibly with history, which can lead one to the conclusion that the theological meditiations are correct. Additionally, the theological meditations are consistent. Absolute proof for a responsible interaction with history is based upon archeological confirmation of the Gospel writer's geographic and political descriptions of Jersalem and first century Judaism, Lukes description of the rulers and geographic journeys of Paul, Paul's theological interaction with first century Judaism, and so forth.

Since you are unwilling (I presume that one as clever as you would already know that the Gospel writers interacted with history) to accept the Gospels and letters of Paul as authoritative theological reflections, I suspect that since you have violated your own critera elsewhere, that you will not believe in the Bible as authoritative even if I did this (I have no clue who AG is, but several people in RF refer to me as AE, an obvious abbreviate of my name):

AG, find me absolute proof of the Garden of Eden, find me The Ark, find me the Ark of the Covenant.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

For the Koran comment, see post number 22 here

 

[niamhwitch]

I believe that the Higher Power (I'll call that "God" for the sake of simplicity) is in all of us. It is a part of us and we are a part of it. Therefore, in a sense, yes I believe that we are all Divine. I dont believe that we are all seperate gods, however I do believe that we are all God.
We do not have the same kinds of powers that God may have but that doesnt make us any less Divine. And like what Master Vigil pointed out, we may have different views on what is Divine.

 

[Saint Xtreme]

Yeah, I messed up. I meant AE, but hit AG for some reason. Maybe you wear alot of silver. Anyways back on topic. I see no reason to accept on book above another when both provide the same truth for their authors relation to history. The writers of the Quaran have been back by Muslim scholars in the same way that you have done for your bible. With so many people having so many true spiritual reflections, why should one value Paul's word over Druidus'?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yeah, I messed up. I meant AE, but hit AG for some reason. Maybe you wear alot of silver. Anyways back on topic. I see no reason to accept on book above another when both provide the same truth for their authors relation to history. The writers of the Quaran have been back by Muslim scholars in the same way that you have done for your bible. With so many people having so many true spiritual reflections, why should one value Paul's word over Druidus'?

You are correct, we are getting off topic, which is why I added a link to another thread, where I discuss with Linwood why Christians only accept the Bible as authoritative, according to the standards of accepting revelation (eg - why you should take Paul's word over Druidus's). If you read it an have further questions or if you can offer a significant rebuttal, I will be happy to discuss it with you there.

I don't wear any silver, and I cannot imagine where that comment is coming from. AE is Greek for messenger of the Gospel.

 

[Druidus]

why should one value Paul's word over Druidus'?

You mean my word has doubt?!?!?!?


I call upon my disciples, then, to join me, in spreading the word of Druidus, the word of God.

 

[Saint Xtreme]

I don't wear any silver, and I cannot imagine where that comment is coming from. AE is Greek for messenger of the Gospel.

Not a chemistry guy, eh? Ag is the elemental symbol for silver. PLease excuse my penchant for really bad jokes.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Obviously, folks would disbelive film just as much as writing - both can be edited to show whatever we want. We have a collection of eyewitness accounts from which we can scientifically deduce which writings are closest to the original by means of redaction and text criticism, somthing that is not available in film. In short, the text is more reliable than film ever could be. {/QUOTE]
'The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.'
Did anyone actually see that happen, or did Stephen King just see it in his head? There are several places in the Dark Tower books where he is actually inside his own story, witnessing events. One of the chapters takes place when he got hit by a van, which we all know to be factual...does that mean Roland Deschain was actually there? Does it make everything else in the books factual?
You and I both know he writes fiction...but who kows how people in a few thousand years are going to view it if a few people decide now that yes, Stephen King does sing the song of Gan,it sounds like a fairly good concept and they run with it, gaining converts as they go?
It is convenient though, that you don't expect your own diety to demonstrate his divinity in the same way as you would qualify it in others.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Perhaps you are incapable of rationalizing that Christians have more intellectual depth than simply reading a book and believing it

Perhaps you haven't noticed that many of them do not have more intellectual depth than that, and will swear black and blue that everything as written in The Big Book of Books is the absolute and literal truth. While many people may be very well read and be able to support their arguments, equally many people will just say that they believe what they do because the bible says they should, and it was 'inspired' by God, so must be right.
Anyone ever noticed how sometimes you can watch a movie that was 'inspired' by a book, and the only resemblance between the two is that a couple of the characters have the same names and perhaps the protagonist has a vaguely similar motivation?

 

[Master Vigil]

Quite right, just because a book says something, it does not make it true. In this present reality, we have a plethera of religious testimony, yet one whose interaction with history is responsible and whose writers produce a consistent theology.

If you can prove to me that christianity is more in accordance to history than taoism, buddhism, islam, hindu, native american, shinto, etc... and perhaps you have a sliver of an argument.

We say that one is true by certian verifiable standards, and we can only say from a scientific standpoint that its metaphysical contents are most probrably true.

Wrong, science cannot predict probability on something that doesn't exist. The only thing the bible proves is that people back then held the opinions and ideas that were written down. This does not prove that the ideas are accurate, even the slightest bit. And if you're looking for scientific probability for the metaphysical aspects of a religion, christianity is far from the closest. I would say taoism and buddhism are much more "probable" with your comparison.

So, yes we have evidence, but you can simply reject the evidence. Rejecting the evidence and saying there is no evidence is entirely different. We have evidence in the Scriptures, which can be accepted or rejected. We also have metaphysical evidenece, like answered prayer and miracles, both of which I understand can be explained away by the unbeliever, but when you ask for something by faith and get it, this is compelling and affirming.

You have evidence, but the evidence is not for what you are using it for. Your evidence proves that the people who wrote the bible, believed what the bible says. It proves that there may have been a person named jesus, it proves that some people believed he performed miracles, and rose from the dead. It proves that it was written by scholarly people of the time who knew much about their history and their culture. But in NO WAY does it prove that what was believed, and written about was true. That is why you have faith, and I allow you to have that faith. What I wished people would stop doing, is equating faith with truth.

 

[Druidus]

If you can prove to me that christianity is more in accordance to history than taoism, buddhism, islam, hindu, native american, shinto, etc... and perhaps you have a sliver of an argument.

Exactly. It seems to me that when one believes one religion to be the end all be all, they get stuck in a box. Why? You can't know if you are correct. Allow the door to remain open.

You have evidence, but the evidence is not for what you are using it for. Your evidence proves that the people who wrote the bible, believed what the bible says. It proves that there may have been a person named jesus, it proves that some people believed he performed miracles, and rose from the dead. It proves that it was written by scholarly people of the time who knew much about their history and their culture. But in NO WAY does it prove that what was believed, and written about was true. That is why you have faith, and I allow you to have that faith. What I wished people would stop doing, is equating faith with truth.

Frubals for this Vigil. Faith does not equate truth.

Edit: I owe you frubals. I must spread some around before giving it to you again though.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not a chemistry guy, eh? Ag is the elemental symbol for silver. PLease excuse my penchant for really bad jokes.

Quite right. I recalled that a few hours later.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you can prove to me that christianity is more in accordance to history than taoism, buddhism, islam, hindu, native american, shinto, etc... and perhaps you have a sliver of an argument.

Providing proof will be relatively easy, proving it to you despite the evidence will be the result of how you interpret the evidence, but it seems that you have already made your conclusions. The Christian Scriptures are the only record of interaction with the divine which responsibly interacts with history.

The Hindu writings are legend and do not coorespond with history, as far as I can tell. The Upanishads and the Bagavad-Gita are entirely metaphysical reflections which do not touch the natural world, yet they have implications for their followers. All of the characters are metaphysical and the interactions with the divine do not touch history. Furthermore, the Hindi history and the social stratificaiton which the religion produced is most suitable to Marx's obervation that religion is the opium for the masses.

I already provided a link to a dicsussion on Islam earlier in the thread, which obviously you did not address here. Isalm does touch history, but not in a responsible manner. It claims to follow in the theology of Abraham and Jesus, but its message is contradictory to both Jewish and Christian theology. That is, it touches the same prophets, but the revelation is different, and there is a great seperation in time between the events (the Koran is thousands of years seperated from any OT character and at least 600 yrs away from Christ). That is, the Koran addresses historical events and persons (scientific) and gives a contradictory metaphysical interpretation of those who actually saw it, or the traditions from the same.

Native American religions and Shinto are like Hinduism in their relationship to history and nature, but in exactly the same way. Shinto's roots reach deep into Japanese legend, and is essentially a mystery religion. Native Americans are essentially nature worshippers.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wrong, science cannot predict probability on something that doesn't exist. The only thing the bible proves is that people back then held the opinions and ideas that were written down. This does not prove that the ideas are accurate, even the slightest bit. And if you're looking for scientific probability for the metaphysical aspects of a religion, christianity is far from the closest. I would say taoism and buddhism are much more "probable" with your comparison.

You have evidence, but the evidence is not for what you are using it for. Your evidence proves that the people who wrote the bible, believed what the bible says. It proves that there may have been a person named jesus, it proves that some people believed he performed miracles, and rose from the dead. It proves that it was written by scholarly people of the time who knew much about their history and their culture. But in NO WAY does it prove that what was believed, and written about was true. That is why you have faith, and I allow you to have that faith. What I wished people would stop doing, is equating faith with truth.

Obviously you are not reading carefully.

The Bible is a mixture of the metaphysical (I have written here and elsewere in the provided links that the metaphysical cannot be tested by science) and the historical. If the Bible did not relate to history, then it would be on the same playing field of ever other religious and secular work. However, since we can interact scientifically with the Bible by verifing its interaction with history, and since the metaphysical testimony constructs a systematic theology, we can conclude that it is most probrably true.

Since you attempted to correct me in a manner in which I qualified myself repeatedly, I must say that your statement You have evidence, but the evidence is not for what you are using it for is precisely backwards. I use the evidence to say that the Bible's interaction with history is scientifically verifiable, and this fact combined with the Bible's systematic theology suggests that the metaphysical unprovable meditations are most likely true.

I must also say that I cannot understand how you can pervert my critera to draw the conclusion that Buddhism and taoism are most likely true. Classical Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy, and where it forms into a religion so many people had their hands on the manuscripts that it is impossible to come to a systematic theology. Toaism is solely a metaphysical reflection and in no way relates to history.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

MasterVirgil,

I must add that I am disappointed that you do not realize when you are saying that I am wrong yet you write specifically what I have written previously. I have two links on this thread to other ones in which I wrote something exactly like this:

Wrong, science cannot predict probability on something that doesn't exist. The only thing the bible proves is that people back then held the opinions and ideas that were written down. This does not prove that the ideas are accurate, even the slightest bit. And if you're looking for scientific probability for the metaphysical aspects of a religion, christianity is far from the closest. I would say taoism and buddhism are much more "probable" with your comparison.

And demonstrated why. I devoted an entire thread to it. Had you paid attention, you would not have missed this critical point. I posted links on post 14, 21, and 26 of this thread. I have consistently kept nature and the divine seperate, even in the post that you respond to:

That is, the interaction with nature can be well established, suggesting that the theological reflection is true, but the subject of theology remaines forever incomprehensible and untestable by nature - the subject remains metaphysical although we have testimony indicating that it has occurred and continues to occur.

I cannot be more precise than that, and I can't believe that you do not realize that I am saying precisely science cannot predict probability on something that doesn't exist when I qualify myself but the subject of theology remaines forever incomprehensible and untestable by nature.

Obviously being the only one realizing that we are going off topic, I posted links to both of these threads, which I specifically created to address these issues, and come to the same conclusions both here and elsewhere. I would not mind being misunderstood, but I have repeatedly said that science can't test the divine and repeatedly said that science only interacts with the historical, non-theological material of Scripture, and repeating it again for you is most irritating.

I will bow out on this thread unless the OP can be addressed.

Theology answers theological questions

Verification of Revelation

 

[Druidus]

The Christian Scriptures are the only record of interaction with the divine which responsibly interacts with history.

What, exactly, do you mean? "Responsibly interact with history"? Books don't interact. Do you mean something else? How do you know that it "interacted with the divine"? Because it says so? How is that justified as true? Because some parts of the bible are historically accurate (many parts definately aren't)? If I wrote one historically fact in the book of Druidus, would I then verify it as true knowledge of the divine?

I already provided a link to a dicsussion on Islam earlier in the thread, which obviously you did not address here. Isalm does touch history, but not in a responsible manner. It claims to follow in the theology of Abraham and Jesus, but its message is contradictory to both Jewish and Christian theology. That is, it touches the same prophets, but the revelation is different, and there is a great seperation in time between the events (the Koran is thousands of years seperated from any OT character and at least 600 yrs away from Christ). That is, the Koran addresses historical events and persons (scientific) and gives a contradictory metaphysical interpretation of those who actually saw it, or the traditions from the same.

The book of Druidus is about 16 hours away from touching God. You still haven't shown me why the other books are any more true than mine.

Since you attempted to correct me in a manner in which I qualified myself repeatedly, I must say that your statement You have evidence, but the evidence is not for what you are using it for is precisely backwards. I use the evidence to say that the Bible's interaction with history is scientifically verifiable, and this fact combined with the Bible's systematic theology suggests that the metaphysical unprovable meditations are most likely true.

This makes no sense at all.

If I tell the truth one time, from then on, everyone believes I cannot be wrong, or lie?

Maybe you can justify saying that a book is right about one thing, because it was right about an entirely different thing, but I can't. It's just not logical.

The Hindu writings are legend and do not coorespond with history, as far as I can tell.

And as far as I can tell, most of the bible is fairy tales, legends, and myths. Besides the book of Druidus, of course.

And at least the Hindu writings do correspond with history, if you are a believing Hindu, just like at least some of the bible does, if you are a believing Christian.

 

[Druidus]

And demonstrated why. I devoted an entire thread to it. Had you paid attention, you would not have missed this critical point. I posted links on post 14, 21, and 26 of this thread. I have consistently kept nature and the divine seperate, even in the post that you respond to:

No you haven't. Your said, more or less, that truth in nature justifies the belief of the probably truth in the metaphysical.

I will bow out on this thread unless the OP can be addressed.

It was addressed. You set standards that even your own God continues to not meet.

 

[Pah]

We are getting close to making this debate personal. I'm going to suggest a cooling off period by closing the thread temporarily.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

I think it's been long enough for everyone to cool off... re-opening...