Total posts: 407
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
which in terms of survival is about as good as it gets.But the value of survival can only be objectively proven through God, there’s no other logical justification.
You have taken that quote out of context, it related to
evolution and that being at the top of the food chain maximises our chance for survival.
However, to address your point, the value of survival it is an end in itself as the alternative is non existence, which has no value.
However, to address your point, the value of survival it is an end in itself as the alternative is non existence, which has no value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, evolution, can create emotions and morality?
Basically yes, although evolution operates through selection
rather than creation, it simply selects those traits that are beneficial for
survival.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I do want to point this out to you as it proves what I am saying.Why did we evolve with empathy, and not murderous intent. What force made us like this and not the other way around.
I thought my post was self explanatory on this, but here it is
again, I will go over it.
“As to morality, morality was selected by evolution in order to promote cooperation and smooth social interactions. We evolved as a tribal species with feelings of empathy for the members within our group, we would seek to protect each other and share any food acquired. Also by cooperating we could hunt large animals and defend ourselves against heavily armed predators. In terms of evolution all this helped to maximise our fitness to survive as it placed us at the top of the food chain, which in terms of survival is about as good as it gets.”
The main point is that through empathy which gave us a sense of belonging and caring for other members of our tribal group, we were able cooperate and by working together this enabled us to hunt large animals and defend ourselves against predators thereby maximising our chances of survival.
And this is how evolution works by “survival of the fittest” or what I think is a better way of looking at it “extinction of the unfit.” It is a mechanism that operates without any divine intervention which was why it caused much outrage within the Christian community when Darwin first proposed it.
You ask “why did we evolve with empathy, and not murderous intent.” There is an element of irony to that question. We evolved with feelings of empathy to those within our group; unfortunately it doesn’t always extend to those we perceive to be outside our group. This has lead to hostility towards those we see as being different and has resulted in thing like racism, nationalism, gang warfare, religious and political conflict and a lot of murderous intent. This trait is also possibly the result of evolution, as survival of the tribal group was paramount and if resources were limited then conflict with other groups could be necessary so that one’s own group would by the fittest to survive.
“As to morality, morality was selected by evolution in order to promote cooperation and smooth social interactions. We evolved as a tribal species with feelings of empathy for the members within our group, we would seek to protect each other and share any food acquired. Also by cooperating we could hunt large animals and defend ourselves against heavily armed predators. In terms of evolution all this helped to maximise our fitness to survive as it placed us at the top of the food chain, which in terms of survival is about as good as it gets.”
The main point is that through empathy which gave us a sense of belonging and caring for other members of our tribal group, we were able cooperate and by working together this enabled us to hunt large animals and defend ourselves against predators thereby maximising our chances of survival.
And this is how evolution works by “survival of the fittest” or what I think is a better way of looking at it “extinction of the unfit.” It is a mechanism that operates without any divine intervention which was why it caused much outrage within the Christian community when Darwin first proposed it.
You ask “why did we evolve with empathy, and not murderous intent.” There is an element of irony to that question. We evolved with feelings of empathy to those within our group; unfortunately it doesn’t always extend to those we perceive to be outside our group. This has lead to hostility towards those we see as being different and has resulted in thing like racism, nationalism, gang warfare, religious and political conflict and a lot of murderous intent. This trait is also possibly the result of evolution, as survival of the tribal group was paramount and if resources were limited then conflict with other groups could be necessary so that one’s own group would by the fittest to survive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
That there may be things that science can’t yet explain doesn’t
validate the existence of God or any other supernatural entity, this is simply
a “God of the gaps” argument.
As to morality, morality was selected by evolution in order
to promote cooperation and smooth social interactions. We evolved as a tribal
species with feelings of empathy for the members within our group, we would
seek to protect each other and share any food acquired. Also by cooperating we could hunt large
animals and defend ourselves against heavily armed predators. In terms of
evolution all this helped to maximise our fitness to survive as it placed us at
the top of the food chain, which in terms of survival is about as good as it
gets.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Obviously a cultural thing. I think here in the UK we are more reserved, we would regard the food on our plate as something personal
and asking to share it would be considered intrusive and impolite.
Created:
Gender is something I have found confusing and it is down to
definition. The terms used are “sex” and “gender.” I would have thought to two
were interchangeable but apparently this is not the case these days.
This is from a UK gov website.
Sex is defined as:
Referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions
Generally male or female
Something that is assigned at birth
Gender is defined as:
A social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself and so the gender category someone identifies with may not match the sex they were assigned at birth
where an individual may see themselves as a man, a woman, as having no gender, or as having a non-binary gender – where people identify as somewhere on a spectrum between man and woman
This is from a UK gov website.
Sex is defined as:
Referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions
Generally male or female
Something that is assigned at birth
Gender is defined as:
A social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself and so the gender category someone identifies with may not match the sex they were assigned at birth
where an individual may see themselves as a man, a woman, as having no gender, or as having a non-binary gender – where people identify as somewhere on a spectrum between man and woman
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Elliott,YOUR QUOTE OF DESPAIR: "This is from the Cambridge Dictionary: “Pareidolia: a situation in which someone sees a pattern or image of something that does not exist, for example a face in a cloud.” There is no mention of Jesus or any divine intervention."The pattern or image one sees relating to pareidolia DOES EXIST or they wouldn't have known it to exist in the first place!!! HELLO? There would be no mention of you if you saw an image of yourself on a piece of toast, would there? The non-mention of Jesus or divine intervention in the definition of pareidolia is therefore moot.We see that you are having a very hard time in understanding miracles done by my serial killer Jesus as God, especially when I give you a verse quoted by Him: “So Jesus said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” (John 4:48) GET IT?! Therefore, what better vehicle to show signs and wonders from Jesus than on a dogs butt! As you would agree, the only drawback would be when said dog takes a dump where that would show Jesus spewing forth shyte out of His mouth, GET IT?! HUH?YOUR OPINION BEING A HELL BOUND ATHEIST: "As to Jesus appearing on a dog’s backside; if his intention was to inspire wonder and veneration, considering the setting of this manifestation it seems a bit of an epic fail."Jesus showing Himself on a Dogs butt so explicitly as shown, is the beauty of the Pareidolia because you didn't expect Him to do it in this manner! In addition, you wouldn't expect Jesus to show Himself in bird poop as well!"While God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will." (Hebrews 2:4)
Wow, my jaw has well and truly dropped.
Created:
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
This is from the Cambridge Dictionary:
“Pareidolia: a situation in which someone sees a pattern or
image of something that does not exist, for example a face in a cloud.” There
is no mention of Jesus or any divine intervention.
As to Jesus appearing on a dog’s backside; if his intention
was to inspire wonder and veneration, considering the setting of this
manifestation it seems a bit of an epic fail.
Created:
Posted in:
Taking food off someone else's plate isn’t something I have
ever come across; it must be an American thing.
Created:
The definition of the word pareidolia would seem to refute
any indication of supernatural intervention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- Well, if you go by any standard of evidence or purity test the distinction will always be fuzzy.
- Certainly, Dionysian cults, Imperial cults, Cargo cults were all considered orthodox and genuine in the context of their time- they were only considered cults by the standards of later religions.
- The distinction I generally use is secrets and lies. Any authentic expression of faith without ulterior motive seeks to maximize attention, attendance, patronage. If you genuinely believe that you hold the secret to human salvation, eternal life, that alone is sufficient motivation for evangelism. If membership is limited, if there are rituals or beliefs that are done in secret, if a members' relationships must be monitored to control the message- then that is what I call a cult.
- By this standard, there are certainly many cults within the Catholic Church, some officially sanctioned, many not. In high school, I was recruited into one such cult. We spent a week forbidden to speak, given much work with little opportunity to sleep and pressed in shoulder to shoulder for long hours into a tiny dark crowded room for worship. I was very much taken in by the simple satisfaction of hard work without much worry about social niceties or personal decision-making. We were expressly forbidden from speaking about those practices but fortunately my mother called bullshit on that as soon as I got home. Even though she was a devoted Catholic she immediately recognized that if one has to keep one's religious practice secret in a free society, then there's something wrong, something dangerous being cultivated within the shadows of that secrecy.
Cults seek converts and not all religions evangelise, the
best example a non-evangelical religion would be Judaism. Regarding secrets and
lies, secrets maybe, lies are harder to identify, what we may perceive to be a
lie, if it is believed to be true, even if obviously false, isn’t a lie
As to your experience at high school, it sounds horrendous. They certainly used what would be seen as cult methodology; perhaps it is the use of such methodology that is the best way to identify as to what is a cult, but from your experience and that mainstream religions may resort to such cult methodology, it would make it harder to differentiate between the two.
As to your experience at high school, it sounds horrendous. They certainly used what would be seen as cult methodology; perhaps it is the use of such methodology that is the best way to identify as to what is a cult, but from your experience and that mainstream religions may resort to such cult methodology, it would make it harder to differentiate between the two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I am not saying people shouldn't be free to try to make their own interpretation.But I believe there is only one proper interpretation of the Christian Scriptures based on the language and other things from that day and age.But this doesn't mean people shouldn't be free to debate what that interpretation is. Most of the time it is cut-and-dry what the proper interpretation is and people are simply wrong. But there are rare occasions where it takes a some research to figure out what was meant. In these the debates are important.But in Christianity there is only one right interpretation and people need to do the best they can to get as close to it as possible.
If you say that there is only one proper interpretation of
the Christian scriptures as a position of belief or faith, then I can’t dispute
that.
Regarding interpretation and the teachings of Jesus, on a social level he seems to promote pacifism and parsimony, yet many who claim to be Christians seem not to interpret them that way … are they wrong or right?
Regarding interpretation and the teachings of Jesus, on a social level he seems to promote pacifism and parsimony, yet many who claim to be Christians seem not to interpret them that way … are they wrong or right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
And many of those texts are open to interpretation. Take Christianity,
wars have been fought over what is considered orthodox and people killed for
what is considered unorthodox.
Just to be pedantic, the Epic of Gilgamesh is Sumerian not Hindu.
Just to be pedantic, the Epic of Gilgamesh is Sumerian not Hindu.
Created:
Posted in:
So who determines what is orthodox? From your definition it
would seem that a cult is a religion that isn’t one’s own.
Created:
Posted in:
I have never been sure as how to differentiate between a
cult and a religion.
Created:
Posted in:
One you may be familiar with but I think it’s a good one.
A speech written by Nosh S. “Soggy” Sweat, Jr and delivered in 1952 to the Mississippi legislature during debate on whether that state should prohibit or legalize alcoholic beverages.
If by Whisky
My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:
If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.
But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
A speech written by Nosh S. “Soggy” Sweat, Jr and delivered in 1952 to the Mississippi legislature during debate on whether that state should prohibit or legalize alcoholic beverages.
If by Whisky
My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about whiskey. All right, here is how I feel about whiskey:
If when you say whiskey you mean the devil’s brew, the poison scourge, the bloody monster, that defiles innocence, dethrones reason, destroys the home, creates misery and poverty, yea, literally takes the bread from the mouths of little children; if you mean the evil drink that topples the Christian man and woman from the pinnacle of righteous, gracious living into the bottomless pit of degradation, and despair, and shame and helplessness, and hopelessness, then certainly I am against it.
But, if when you say whiskey you mean the oil of conversation, the philosophic wine, the ale that is consumed when good fellows get together, that puts a song in their hearts and laughter on their lips, and the warm glow of contentment in their eyes; if you mean Christmas cheer; if you mean the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman’s step on a frosty, crispy morning; if you mean the drink which enables a man to magnify his joy, and his happiness, and to forget, if only for a little while, life’s great tragedies, and heartaches, and sorrows; if you mean that drink, the sale of which pours into our treasuries untold millions of dollars, which are used to provide tender care for our little crippled children, our blind, our deaf, our dumb, our pitiful aged and infirm; to build highways and hospitals and schools, then certainly I am for it.
This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
I've given somewhat more practical solutions to what I'm talking about here: Post-tribal human: Redesigning the human brain (debateart.com)The overall argument is better crystalized, too.
Thanks, I will check it out, looks interesting.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Thanks for sharing
You’re welcome, I’m more than happy to share my disbeliefs, I have many of them.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
There is the belief that Jesus will not return until everyone has heard the message, so it's a way to hasten his return and save souls in the process.
Jesus return is not a belief I share.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The fact we have the Bible translated into Esperanto is proof Christians demanded it.
The Bible has been translated into practically every language
that exists; this is down to Christian evangelism rather than demand.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Προτείνω ότι η επίσημη γλώσσα του DebateArt.com να είναι τα ελληνικά
That’s all Greek to me.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
It already is English, people disagreeing are just very proud/insecure for no rational reason.If the world all spoke Mandarin, it's no need to be ashamed, just learn it and adapt.
I agree, but people will try to cling to their language because
they see it as part of their culture and national identity.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You aren't helping that situation if you don't learn esperanto and push it onto other people
I don’t think my not learning Esperanto has contributed to
its success or failure, my influence isn’t that great. However, I do try not to
push things onto other people and I am wary of those who do, it smacks of
authoritarianism.
Initially Esperanto was a good idea, to create a common tongue that would help breakdown international boundaries. It has had moments of success but has never really caught on, possibly one of the main reasons is the rise of English, mainly because of America, it has become the international language for trade and now it is seen as the language of the internet.
I think if we survive long enough we will end up with an international language, the way things are going it will probably be based on English but incorporating other languages, that is how a language develops; English is largely a mixture of Latin, Germanic languages and French.
Initially Esperanto was a good idea, to create a common tongue that would help breakdown international boundaries. It has had moments of success but has never really caught on, possibly one of the main reasons is the rise of English, mainly because of America, it has become the international language for trade and now it is seen as the language of the internet.
I think if we survive long enough we will end up with an international language, the way things are going it will probably be based on English but incorporating other languages, that is how a language develops; English is largely a mixture of Latin, Germanic languages and French.
Created:
Incorrect. These people literally travel to random countries to listen to each other speak, no matter how shitty an esperanto book is 20k people will buy it merely for the language it is written in.There is a lot of indication that appealing to a demographic that loves debating and engaging with each other in a particular way, by offering to debate them in their preferred ways to communicate will draw them in.Let's say the forum is less active though. By requiring this language be spoken it will weed out the retards on this forum and raise the average IQ of people posting here, this bringing more engaging conversation
Yes, but we aren’t talking about people travelling to other countries, and people with minority interests will often travel long distances to engage
with those who share their interests.
I certainly wouldn’t bother learning Esperanto simply to communicate on some forum, so I guess that makes me one of the retards.
The purpose of language is to communicate, therefore having
an understanding of a language that a large number of people also understand will
aide communication but learning some obscure language that only a few people understand
doesn’t; in fact it could be seen as divisive.
I would hope one day for a world where people speak only one language,
I think it would help unify humanity.
Created:
The beauty of debating online is that it gives you time to
think up smart-ass answers.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I just checked and there are already a few Esperanto forums but
none of them seemed particularly active, so changing this site’s language possibly
wouldn’t be very productive.
Created:
-->
@Shila
If Christians can learn about God, they can surely learn Esperanto. The same cannot be said about Atheists.
What is to stop atheists learning Esperanto? In fact, I have
known only known one person who had learnt Esperanto and they also happened to
be an atheist.
Atheists can also learn about god, however you want to define god, it’s not difficult.
Atheists can also learn about god, however you want to define god, it’s not difficult.
Created:
-->
@Shila
The Bible is available in Esperanto so Christians will not be affected by the language change.
That only works if all Christians understand Esperanto
and I’m pretty sure that they don’t.
Created:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
That is a terrible way to judge it. People that speak it are hungry to be around others who speak it because it is rare, so of the billions of English speakers nearly 0% are on the site. However esperanto speakers while low in number I believe people who are active in the community say 100000 would come at a rate of about 10%
Given the argument that the small number of people who speak Esperanto,
because of its rarity would be attracted to this forum so to be able to communicate
with others in that language.
Using that argument you could equally change the sites official language to Cornish, it is thought that only between 8,000 and 13,000 speak that.
Using that argument you could equally change the sites official language to Cornish, it is thought that only between 8,000 and 13,000 speak that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
For it to be an evolutionary advantage it would need to help maximise our fitness to survive and I can’t see how religion does this.You seriously can't see how a belief system that would eliminate fear of death would be advantageous to a group fighting against groups that value self preservation?In a time where retreat in battle was easy you don't see how having fighters who refused to retreat because they had no fear of death would be an advantage?
There was some confusion, mainly on my part over the term “evolutionary
advantage,” which I took to mean something that would select a genetic
mutation that would help our survival. When religion appeared that process had
been completed and we were already developed as homo sapiens.
Created:
Having just done a quick bit of research about 293,200 people speak Esperanto as opposed to 1.5 billion who speak English. So probably
not going to encourage a rush of new members.
Created:
Posted in:
@Best.Korea
I feel the need to masturbate every single day. I get turned on so easily that I think about it even while I am praying. I am ashamed to confess it to my parents. They literally have no clue. I keep thinking about masturbation every day and how to control my thoughts. My urges to masturbate keep getting stronger. I have the constant urge to masturbate. I cant stop thinking about it.
I downloaded a lot of Al programs to help me solve the problem, as I dont believe in human medicine.
The Al app on my phone tells me its normal to masturbate and its nothing to be ashamed of.
So I had a discussion with Al. I pointed out that I am a believer and that I cant afford to keep thinking about masturbation while I am praying to God.
The Al suggested meditation, so I will try with that. But even medidation is hard because I keep THINKING ABOUT MY GENITALS.
Here in the UK you would probably be called a “complete wanker.”
Created:
Posted in:
@Best.Korea
I decide what is true. I decided that what you said is not true. Stop your crimes.
My mistake, you are serious about looking ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
I assume purpose of this topic is satirical and is intended to make God
look ridiculous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Avery
Yes, being concerned with human suffering requires a capacity for emotion, in order to empathize. I think such a concern is universal, but the antinatalist conclusion of 'make humans extinct' requires emotional detachment. You've got all of the evolutionary hardwiring commanding humans to breed and not kill themselves, and the antinatalist ideology requires complete ignoring of those instincts.Sure, it's not completely emotionally detached, but agreeing with the logical conclusions requires a large degree of emotional detachment.
The antinatalist argument is an interesting one but as
you say we are evolutionary hardwired to survive and to breed and an ideology
that requires ignoring those instincts, as I see it, isn’t just going to fail, it
isn’t going to happen.
I may close it there as I can’t think of anything else to contribute.
I may close it there as I can’t think of anything else to contribute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Just applying your truths to my case of the Historical Jesus. I will mention you in the acknowledgment.
To quote Pilate ~ “What is truth?”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
That is a good example of the case for the Historical Jesus which is based on truth and does not require faith. It offers Simple answers without getting into the philosophical nature of "truth."Thank you.
Shila, you seem have misinterpretation down to a fine art.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Nice thought, but is that truth?
Simple answer without getting into the philosophical nature
of "truth." Faith doesn’t require truth but it can be based on truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well I am going to take it that you have actually read Isiah in its entirety? But you have failed to realise that this so-called prophecy was intended to be fulfilled in king Ahaz's lifetime and has nothing at all to do with a child to be born 700 years into the future.After all, what good would a child to be born 700 years into the future be to king Ahaz in his hour of need?I have said it before that this is the author of Matthew's gospel once again reaching for his trusty OT in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to the OT prophesies as being the one to come and prophesised about, and it is something he does often in the New Testament.The founders of Christianity appear to have accepted it as a prophecy that related to the coming of the messiah and it is that which matters.Because it suited them to do so. And what matters, is the truth.This prophesy is also perceived to relate to Jesus supposed virgin birth, which is also fundamental to a belief in the messianic claim.Your quote above^^ is what many traditional bibles claim. But is it accurate?This is what Good News Translation states."Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel.' "Isaiah 7:14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14So here above we have a present tense. The young woman is already with child. So unless this young woman undergoes a 700 year pregnancy then this child is not the child that the author of Mathew can possibly be talking about.It appears then that someone, intentional or not, made a mistranslation (no surprises there then).And wouldn't have Isaiah use the Hebrew word for Virgin- bethulah?bethulah: a virginOriginal Word: בְּתוּלָהPart of Speech: Noun FeminineTransliteration: bethulahPhonetic Spelling: (beth-oo-law')Definition: a virginthe messianic claimJesus only once agree that he was the Messiah. Although he didn't say so outright. But did he fulfil that role that was expected of a Messiah? .For instance.Did he rebuild the Temple?Did he unite all the Jewish tribes?Did he free the Jews from the Roman yoke?AndDid he bring peace to the world?And remember this, when Mary is said to conceive this child, did he inherit the throne of Jerusalem/David as was promised by God to his mother? No.Did he rule over the house of Jacob forever, and did his kingdom will never end? No.What he inherited was three nails and two bits of wood with a view overlooking the Kidron valley.You may want to peruse your line of questioning by looking up the word- Alma - and what it means. this link may help you>>
I don’t think I disagree with anything you say there and I am familiar
with the possible mistranslation regarding the word “virgin.”
I think the argument as to whether Jesus existed or not will continue but will not be resolved. You say what matters, is the truth but for a believer truth is revealed through faith.
I think the argument as to whether Jesus existed or not will continue but will not be resolved. You say what matters, is the truth but for a believer truth is revealed through faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well I am going to take it that you have actually read Isiah in its entirety? But you have failed to realise that this so-called prophecy was intended to be fulfilled in king Ahaz's lifetime and has nothing at all to do with a child to be born 700 years into the future.After all, what good would a child to be born 700 years into the future be to king Ahaz in his hour of need?I have said it before that this is the author of Matthew's gospel once again reaching for his trusty OT in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to the OT prophesies as being the one to come and prophesised about, and it is something he does often in the New Testament.
The founders of Christianity appear to have accepted it as a
prophecy that related to the coming of the messiah and it is that which matters.
This prophesy is also perceived to relate to Jesus supposed virgin birth, which
is also fundamental to a belief in the messianic claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
You need to pick younger partners for what you do to them.
Unfortunately my days of having to fight off hoards of beautiful
young women have long since passed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Americans invented TV. The Brits were forced to learn how English should be spoken.
It was John Logie Baird a Scotsman in the UK who invented the first working television. And it was the BBC that started the world's first public, regular, high-definition
Television station.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.
Yes, you are right, I used the English translation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles. While I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church.
I agree, that’s certainly possible. I personally think there is a real person
behind the story but ignoring the miracles I wonder how much of the end result was distorted
through oral tradition and the imagination of the gospel writers.
There is one thing that makes me think Jesus was a real person and that is his name. A lot of work in the creation of the New Testament involved the fulfilling of Old Testament messianic prophecies. This is one of them and I would think an important one.
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”
This to me this suggests Jesus existed as a real person and was reasonably well known by the name Jesus, so they were not able to change it to Immanuel.
There is one thing that makes me think Jesus was a real person and that is his name. A lot of work in the creation of the New Testament involved the fulfilling of Old Testament messianic prophecies. This is one of them and I would think an important one.
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”
This to me this suggests Jesus existed as a real person and was reasonably well known by the name Jesus, so they were not able to change it to Immanuel.
Created:
Posted in:
Did Jesus actually exist or is he a mythological figure.
Outside of the gospels there is no contemporary evidence and even the gospels
were written after the events portrayed and were probably derived from oral
tradition.
The thing is, it doesn’t matter. Jesus is a god or a god incarnate, he is not totally human because he has powers that make him superhuman and like all gods he exits through belief and belief is all that is necessary for him to exist, and the actual human Jesus or Joshua to give him his real name is unnecessary.
Even if some ancient scrolls were discovered that proved Jesus and his life was simply a work of fiction, I don’t think that would influence Christian beliefs one iota.
The thing is, it doesn’t matter. Jesus is a god or a god incarnate, he is not totally human because he has powers that make him superhuman and like all gods he exits through belief and belief is all that is necessary for him to exist, and the actual human Jesus or Joshua to give him his real name is unnecessary.
Even if some ancient scrolls were discovered that proved Jesus and his life was simply a work of fiction, I don’t think that would influence Christian beliefs one iota.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Why, you didn’t get banned for being a penguin. Why do you need to prove it?
I didn’t know you were banned, what were you banned for?
Created:
-->
@Shila
I will need to get permission to post a picture of my hymen to both prove I am not a bot and that I am a virgin.
And equally, I could post a picture to prove that I’m a
penguin.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Which part of Shila is a bot that you would like to see and touch to confirm it is not?
Which part of Shila would it be possible to see and touch?
Created: