Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Divinity and Attributes of God
message 51:
by
Lee
(new)
Mar 09, 2016 05:44PM
You know very well that's not my style. And unfortunately, I suck at defending anything but the truth.
reply
|
flag
Lee I have never experienced you doing anything but putting forth liberal propaganda. You need to prove to us that you can explore the world of OTHER scholars as well.
I am on the side of the best scholars, be they liberal or conservative. I've read and learned from many of each.It's just that you are so far to the conservative side that any argument we ever have will have me on the liberal side.
I agree we will always assume our sides.Just for fun - I love to find my side occasionally losing a moment. I assume nothing. I'm on my own side.
Bring on a scholarly debate and we will thwart it with truth that never changes over time. Anybody out there?
What do you want to debate, Joshua? We tried to debate whether or not the author of Matthew's Gospel believed Jesus was God, but basically the "yes" side failed to put up an argument. Result: by default, Matthew didn't believe that.We tried debating whether or not Jesus would condemn homosexuality, but again, the conservative side could provide no argument. Result: Jesus taught compassion and understanding, not bigotry.
Rod and I are currently discussing whether there is a contradiction between John's Gospel and Mark's Gospel over the timing of Jesus's death, and again the conservative side is left with no argument. Result: the Bible is not inerrant.
So our debates here generally result in me providing a wealth of evidence which is promptly ignored. Why waste my time?
I totally proved Matthew insisted Jesus was God. You just refuse to accept it Lee ( we can keep digging though - I barely even began. It was so simple)
Same goes for the homosexuality and Jesus death issue Lee. Slow down with your liberal media boasting. Although it's very funny to observe.
You didn't eve try, Rod. You gave no argument at all. I submitted pages of evidence in all cases; you submitted nothing except what amounts to "surely those people believed like I do or they wouldn't have used language which 400 years later got turned into a Trinity belief"
And that is why you fail.But I plan to play with those arguments some more.
There is nothing to play with, Rod. The bible says what it says in plain language, and you reject it, because you want to believe a lie.
Lee, I have read the comments and some of your arguments and it is only you that believes that lack of evidence is a proof of a point. This is contrary to what a belief is. We do not need any empirical evidence or intellectual defence for us to believe in something. With that said, was Jesus God? Of cause He was and still is. How can Jesus be God? Instead of saying Go figure, I am going to remind you because I know this is not new to you of the triune nature of God. Now to a philosophical point, I understand that any probabilistic question such as what would Jesus do? Can God create a new world, Can God make a square circle and such can be hard to grapple with however, they are probable and not the truth therefore they pose no threat to any of Rod's argument.
Lee, I like reading your comments and I would like to see how you react to this. Would you believe the Bible if it only recorded good things and deliberately chose to ignore the so called embarrassing stories in it? Or would you rather believe a book that does not shy away from truth and tells it like it is.
By the way this is one of the reasons why I strongly believe in the bible as a reliable, cogent and coherent source of wisdom, truth and morals.
This is off topic but hey Rob and Lee my book on entrepreneurship philosophy is free on amazon today only. You guys can grab it on this link http://amzn.to/1SCHwC5
Joshua said: Lee, I have read the comments and some of your arguments and it is only you that believes that lack of evidence is a proof of a point. False, Joshua. When we have every right to expect evidence, and the evidence is not there, then lack of evidence becomes a very strong arguing point. If you cannot accept simple debate facts like this, then debate will become impossible.
You will note that the argument was not whether or not Jesus was God. The discussion was about what the author of Mattthew's Gospel believed.
btw, the type of book I would trust in is irrelevant to the discussions I've held on here. What you believe about the bible is equally irrelevant; what matters in a debate is the evidence provided.
If you can stay on topic better than Rod can, and would like to debate a particular topic about the bible, I'll give you a shot. What interests you?
Lee, if you refute that point I put across then we are going to end up in a circular debate but I am down bring it on. I would also like to make it clear that I am not better than Rob or anybody who has participated in this talk and followed this thread thus far. Back to my lack of evidence as a proof of a point. Science has failed over and over to prove what existed before the big bang and if something came out of nothing. Is that not lack of evidence? But scientists have stuck to their guns believing that something came out of nothing. What is your take on that Lee?
Here is an excerpt from a book that I am working on, coming out this summer. This excerpt is to help us understand what beliefs are:
Belief
A belief is any set of propositions held to be true by the possessor of those propositions separated from any epistemological standards or rationale. Belief does not necessarily encompass knowledge. It is neither a priori nor a posteriori. It is simply conviction based on trust of one's own judgement concerning the proposition in question. One may rationalize justification for one's beliefs. One may even cite evidence of them. Yet, in the absence of such rationalizations and evidence one can still hold belief simply by trusting that one's convictions are true. There need be no other internal or external constructions."
So tell me, has science proved a point by not telling us the causation of all that exist? Now that is what scientists believe and I am still working on this project. At this stage I am researching causation as explain by quantum physics and what could have existed before existence. So keep waiting for the book
I like you already, Joshua.re: creation, No, sorry, I'm on your side with this one. I have inconclusive evidence that there was or was not a creator, but I lean toward us having a creator.
I'm also on board with your definition of belief. I admire people who can admit "I believe this, but I have inadaquate evidence to argue for my belief." I, by the way, am an agnostic, and I admire people even more who don't build a premature belief but search for the facts.
My point re: lack of evidence is better made with a different example. Suppose you hypothesize that a stapler sits on every desk. I invite you to examine my desk with me. We see no stapler. My case rests already, based purely on lack of evidence.
On this subject, Lee, I don't see much to debate with you. I've cozied up to an omniscient, omnipotent Divinity, who, as part of the Trinity, sent His only Son to be earthly God/Man who sacrificed the Man part for our sins and was resurrected to conquer death for us. A little logic and a lot of Faith led me to internalize this by which I gained the Holy Spirit and a pathway to Eternity. Your pluralistic viewpoints therefore hold no allure and this compact with Jesus will remain inviolate not because of my great self will but because of His promise. If we were equally yoked, we might debate how the Son's sacrifice can best be glorified, but as you view Jesus as nothing more than a Man overflowing with compassion, your input would lack cosmic clout.
Your stance is actually appreciated, Robert. I have no problem with people who hold religious beliefs, so long as they don't pretend there is some logical or scholarly reason I should believe the same way or that their belief system is better than another's.
Lee's happy as long as everyone tolerates ambiguous nothing - basic liberal scholarship.No wonder Lee doesn't argue with atheists or Muslims. They wouldn't even give him the time of day. I'm far too nice - that's my biggest flaw.
Lee wrote: "You know very well that's not my style. And unfortunately, I suck at defending anything but the truth."Dear Lee,
I am a new comer to social media and as such to Goodreads.I am reading through your posts and from an atheist point of view it is OK to have such feelings. But you must also understand that the believers also may have the same such view for them to be believers.
Now coming back to your point whether Jesus existed, would have to be evaluated on the then set up.There is a book coming up on 27th March named Pierced Souls. I request that you read that book(of course free for you) have a reasonable analytic on the facts and circumstances and I hope it shall answer your consternation in ample way.
I would love to read the book Matthew, though I don't recall discussing whether Jesus existed in these forums. Maybe you read my opinion on my blog?Which side of the argument do you take?
Good to meet you!
Lee wrote: "I would love to read the book Matthew, though I don't recall discussing whether Jesus existed in these forums. Maybe you read my opinion on my blog?Which side of the argument do you take?
Good t..."
Nice to meet you too. Thanks a lot for the kind gesture.I would rather take the side of my experience with the God.Not as a laymen of premeditated systems. Why so is concisely depicted in my book not as my story but as the truths from Bible.
Lee wrote: "What do you want to debate, Joshua? We tried to debate whether or not the author of Matthew's Gospel believed Jesus was God, but basically the "yes" side failed to put up an argument. Result: by de..."Am tempted to write too much on this. But rather wait till am weighed for acceptability. I just want to mention one thing from experience. Homosexuality is a disease that needs cures not acceptance. There may not be single one in the group who has not been abused in their childhood say till eighteen years. Not found anyone in my sixty years. It is an addictive melancholy.
Thank you Robert and Mathew for joining this talk. I am learning a lot from you guys. Amazing points from both world views. Keep up the respect we have for one another and let's stay true to our belief.
Be sure never to respect a lie or deception. Respect honourable loving truth.
Thanks Lee and Joshua.This conversations gives me enormous confidence as am right now struggling with a kind of jittery. I have a twitter account @mytheotokos and there it may seem to any that I boast too much about my book. The fact is that my relentless pursuit in utter solitude for about a year helped me to craft a book that shall astound the world.(I tend to believe, for too many reasons, it was the plan destined for me). It contradict the very platform of the doctrine we are till this day irrespective of the sects. And amazingly reinforce the belief in God and the sanctity of every word written in Bible albeit with sporadic chronological lapses.
My only hope is a self reigned contemplation of every Christian as a layman.
I earnestly hope the forums of this repute may evaluate the same and support me
Rod wrote: "Be sure never to respect a lie or deception. Respect honourable loving truth."
I assure you with the breath of my very existence, that there shall not be a single word out of Bible.The study is purely based on Bible and Bible alone.
btw Mathew, I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic Christian. Rod is right though that I am a humanitarian (how could any real Jesus follower not be?), so statements like "homosexuality is a disease" are very disturbing to me, knowing the extreme pain (resulting in thousands of suicides) this stance is causing. I would like to see your scientific research that draws such a conclusion.
Lee wrote: "btw Mathew, I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic Christian. Rod is right though that I am a humanitarian (how could any real Jesus follower not be?), so statements like "homosexuality is a disease..."I am sorry if my comment disturbed you and it was not intended to hurt anyone. I had gone through an experience of my father who had been diagnosed with Alzheimer disease. And the scientific community written him off categorically telling that there is no way he could be revived for he lost all his sensual reasoning. I took him home stopped all his medicines put him under a nurse and gave her certain instructions. Believe me, in three months time he came back to a stage to an extent that he was asking for the toilet whenever he felt so. And the doctors certified it as a miracle.You may know why I wrote this story.
I just want you to ponder on one thing, can you identify a single homosexual who become one in adulthood? It is a result of abuse and later turned in to addiction.Hence I said about cure/counseling.
Joshua wrote: "Lee, I have read the comments and some of your arguments and it is only you that believes that lack of evidence is a proof of a point. This is contrary to what a belief is. We do not need any empir..."Mathew wrote: "Lee wrote: "btw Mathew, I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic Christian. Rod is right though that I am a humanitarian (how could any real Jesus follower not be?), so statements like "homosexuality ..."
And to Joshua,
I would like to point out that there are no embarrassing stories in Bible. Not at least to the New Testament Perspective. But we have a problem of premeditated notions imposed to us through ages.It is the handiwork of the evil and we were just blinded to know the truth. Why I am confidant in saying so is the experience am going through. In about two weeks time the same shall be shared with the world. An obscure amateur, non English, no theological background wrote truth.in his own naive English.
This is great - I can stay out of this one.
I would still like to see studies backing up your claim about how homosexuality happens, and presuming it's a sickness, how it is cured. We need to be clear about what is a local opinion (which carries no sway with anyone else, nor should it) and what has been properly studied and documented (for which I can read the study results, convince myself that it was properly conducted with an appropriate subject base, and decide whether to accept the conclusions).
Lee wrote: "I would still like to see studies backing up your claim about how homosexuality happens, and presuming it's a sickness, how it is cured. We need to be clear about what is a local opinion (which car..."Dear Lee,
We all know that the authenticity of studies, a majority of them, are the result of the then perceptions of the scientists. There were a time, we are told that earth is flat and we believed them. I still a recall a study conducted in our place that detailed that use of coconut oil leads to heart disease. Then another study a couple of years after entailed that coconut oil in fact strengthen the heart. I leave at that.
Let me put up my understanding to the context. Human either female or male as such is made up of two factors; feminine and masculine. This factors vary in each person.In some cases the feminine attribute in a male is more than necessary and vice versa. This persons are highly prone to vulnerability. And we know that in a community living, at your home, or relations , or the environments you cohabit, everyone is not a saint. That sometimes makes the above said category a prey. Obviously in a tender age. The lure is such that he/she becomes a target and ultimately making him/her perpetrator. This is the run of human physiology.
Now on the remedial part, the best way is to control oneself. Are we made up of that? In the absence of the above an earlier counseling can bring in results. But normally it might be beyond reparation by the time one understand his/her guilt or someone else find the abbe ration. And it answers your question of suicides and discomforts. For that there is not much of a remedy than said above. Please understand that it is my perception evaluating the aspects.
yeah, well, such speculation is fun and interesting but doesn't carry much weight of course. I think what disturbed me was the term "disease" as if there were something inherently wrong or abnormal about being gay, and that such people would be better off if we could fix them.Your talk about remediation leads me to believe that's exactly what you meant, but maybe I misunderestood. For example, would you say love is a disease, or empathy is a disease?
Lee wrote: "yeah, well, such speculation is fun and interesting but doesn't carry much weight of course. I think what disturbed me was the term "disease" as if there were something inherently wrong or abnormal..."No one fixes a mentally challenged. He needs compassion and empathy to bring him back into the main stream. At times I amuse at the thoughts, will a government brings out a law in the affirmative if thousands demands that their natural inclination is to non human? And there may be millions.Can I or my counterpart demand for my fundamental right to give birth? There is an equilibrium and we are the gatekeepers. Well, it is up to us whether we crash in and reap the reward. After all we are made up with a free will.
Joshua wrote: "Thank you so much Lee and Rod for your insights and ideas. With due respect to your world-view (no religion or political stand), Do you believe that a divine being that is self caused must and in h..."I humbly would request Lee, Rob and Joshua to have a peek at my website and the partner page. I put up a blog from my forthcoming book and it may give some insight in to how to go about religion
I'm sorry Mathew, you will not gain traction with these ideas among humanitarian-minded Christians. I must decline.
A sin is a sin - no matter who or how they desire it. Just ask God.
Lee wrote: "I'm sorry Mathew, you will not gain traction with these ideas among humanitarian-minded Christians. I must decline."My idea is not to impose anything. My mission is to spread the message am entrusted with.The truths that lay obscured for two thousand years. Or perhaps from four thousand years, that is where the history started for Christianity.I only have one request just contemplate whether I can be refuted on the basis of Bible.I am interested in Lee's comments particularly on this.
alright, if you have any idea in particular that you believe is supported by the Bible, I'll have a go at it.
Matthew's possible insanity:"The truths that lay obscured for two thousand years. Or perhaps from four thousand years:
Do share what these supposed truth are? I'm not convinced you have any worth reading Matthew. Sounds like the Da Vinci Code stuff. Been there, done that - the Movie Sucked!
Rod wrote: "Matthew's possible insanity:"The truths that lay obscured for two thousand years. Or perhaps from four thousand years:
Do share what these supposed truth are? I'm not convinced you have any worth..."
Dear Rod,
Thanks for your pragmatic approach.Yes, insanity is a word aptly used.Two thousand years ago this word was used often. Some intentionally and a few inadvertently.Even the Lords friends and relatives had to use this word to save him from getting killed.
Please bear with me for two more weeks and I shall share my insanity with you as well with the world. And in a weeks time, precisely on 20th March, the first chapter (4000yrs mystery I mentioned) shall be released through my website.It is the only chapter out of 75000 words for which I do not have enough source to further my studies. But it definitely gives enough ammunition for a thought process. I invite you personally to be there and weigh my credence.
Yes, I offer this book to the one who ravished on Da Vinci Code or a Jesus dynasty. As a heavenly feast.
Lee wrote: "alright, if you have any idea in particular that you believe is supported by the Bible, I'll have a go at it."I assure you,
With a life lived for almost sixty years, always standing for justice for which I suffered unfathomably and still suffering immeasurably, that I shall not present a single word out of context from Bible.
And on a personal note I apologize if my reckonings hurt you in anyway. I spoke those words from my heart from my experiences.
Lee wrote: "alright, if you have any idea in particular that you believe is supported by the Bible, I'll have a go at it."It is not an Idea. It is the cardinal truths that eluded our understandings and dented the doctrine.There may be controversies, there may be heated exchanges, for the book deals with a different outlook altogether. But I do not think I have to wait for 100 yrs for the world to accept truth as had happened to Einstein with his Blackhole theory.
You talk a lot - and yet: nothing.Which we do much of here. But I am interested in anything that perfectly matches the Bible... Most Mormons claim their confused teachings do exactly that. As do all cults --- even Catholics.
As the world falsely attempts to claim Jesus - how are you different?
Mathew, what I mean is, if you would like to present a point here that you feel may be controversial, with your scriptural backing, I'll have a go at testing its scriptural validity. That's what you asked, right?
Lee, isn't your scriptures all myths and fables? So you're comparing Unicorns and Wizards?
Good point Rob. How do you test validity of a scripture if you do not fully embrace the concept?
