Shila

anyone can believe anything they wish for any reason they wish

 

Yep, we all “choose” our beliefs.

 

but if you're going to expect someone else to believe what you believe

 

It seems that there are as many evangelical Atheists as there are evangelical Theists.

 

you need to be able to explain what the hell you're talking about.

 

The basis of faith is not inferential reason, it is personal encounter with the values, meaning, and purpose that can be apprehended in and through ordinary experience.

The believer does not commit to an inferred God whose existence depends on the strength and validity of the arguments that are devised for proving or disproving his likely existence. Faith does not move in the arena of historical or metaphysical probabilities, it moves in the arena of inwardness, of self-knowledge. 

Faith is total commitment to a discernment, it brings depths of new discernment, opportunities for new commitment and empowerment for realizing our unique potentialities.

To believe in God is primarily to believe in the objectivity the meaning, value and purpose found in the experiential reality of a human being.  That view is not based on evidence but is an axiom that makes a life of faith – of seeing all experience in the light of such objective value and purpose – possible.  Such a belief is confirmed primarily by the sense it enables people to make of their lives.  It is also confirmed by the greater vitality, happiness, and moral dynamism that it reportedly brings to those who accept it.

Because Christ is our sabbath.  

Appealing to numbers counts for exactly zero. Billions of Muslims see Jesus only as a prophet . And we know that "the greatest prophet that ever lived" appears to have gotten it all wrong.

They believe that or you believe that?

A lot of bold claims here, care to support any of them?

so America has a speed limit in order to prepare people for a future exile. Got it. That also explains the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Brilliant.

Judaism also produced other false messiahs. What aren't you a Sabbatean?

No, not uniquely.

yes, but not what we were speaking about. Instead of dealing with the stupidity of your earlier statement you go in a completely different direction and cut and paste something which I already know and which doesn't relate to your erroneous claim.

We don't know if we can reproduce an effect until we do it, and based on humes problem of induction if we do it again we wont know for certain if it will work that time until its done.

confidence in reproducibility is quantifiable in units of sigma

The Bible portrays God as a genocidal lunatic. I am sure there is some evidence of morality to justify his genocidal behaviour.

The Bible can be interpreted in many different ways, nonetheless there are some people that would classify themself as religious but don’t believe in the God depicted in The Bible.

 It is interesting to note that J. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the atomic bomb,  was an atheist and a scientist, but culturally Jewish.

Morality.

Yes, it's a concept that tends to vary considerably.

I believe that the concept of God, believing in God 'can help with an iPhone,

Take individuals who suffer from cyberbullying,

Many individuals by God and religion,

Are able to discover game theories, that aid in durability of character and understanding,

As well as their faith placed, will endure in understanding or strength standing.

Though not believing in God myself,

I prefer 'my apparent truth of atheism,

And find what tools from it and elsewhere, that aid me.

I actually 'do doubt my thoughts and existence at times,

Not 'usually, but sometimes.

And we survived. Is Egypt still dominant? You seem rather set against the idea that Judaism has succeeded. You should read more Mark Twain.

Judaism also produced other false messiahs. What aren't you a Sabbatean?

I disagree that an iPhone and God are the same shape, meaning,

Replace has variance depending on what function is being replaced,

I think your comment on an iPhone replacing God, is too broad a statement.

One 'can be refused a membership of an iPhone,

If the government refuses the citizens such,

If a company refuses a citizen such,

If one has not the funds to afford one,

If one refuses spyware be included in their iPhone.

I think more of God, than I do iPhones.

Though I'm an atheist.

. . .

Though depending on various situations, I may encourage people to use an iPhone, God, or both.

Are you quoting an encyclopedia? What was the point of that post?

Actually I think a belief in God can save lives,

And kill lives,

Same with an iPhone.

The first step to Evangelical Christianity, of course, was Martin Luther and his Five Solae. Luther literally called his own church "evangelical", despite the significant differences between 16th century Lutheranism and modern Evangelicalism.

Are you aware of morality?

Humans wont die out if we didnt have phones, which is the main point. They're not a necessity for the humans species to survive. They may be essential for modern society but that's different from what we were talking about. 

Compare the Jewish view and whatever view others put into the die for me Jesus delusion.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Regards

DL

Yes, because he wasn't. 

No, one can see Judaism as having succeeded, living in palces all around the world. I'm not sure what you consider "success". First you look at number of adherents and yet you admit that there are more Hindus that Chisitians so by that metric Christianity is a failure. Then you look at a little bit of geography but Vatican city os tine.

I dealt with the Finkelstein issue in another thread. Your fixation with him (and with not reading things, and with repeating content) is noted.

IPhone's aren't necessary for the continued existence of humanity.

define God differently depending who I speak to,

As often these days, it's a word of more clear meaning and definition for them, than myself.

For myself as time passes, it becomes more a nonword for myself,

Not in a reviled sense, but that it has lost meaning for myself, and garners meaning more in how it applies in discussions with others, than myself.

You wonder because you don't understand Judaism at all. Why you are so proud to parade your ignorance is the real mystery. I can't wait for you to repeat exactly what you wrote again, as if that will change anything.

"I would would agree that faith based on empirical evidence is necessary for us to function within our perception of reality. Religious belief requires no such evidence."

I get the sense this is an appeal to vagueness. Which empirical beliefs are necessary for day to day functioning? I feel like it exists in a manner of degrees. Some people are fine not believing in free will, some people even seem fine being unsure of what will happen tomorrow.  In this same sense some are fine not being religious or fine with god not existing, others not so much!

The world reeks of it.

Regards

DL

Their need was obviously not met.

Regards

DL

Too stupid.

Moving on.

Regards

DL

ooh, swing and a miss.

none because your presupposition is wrong. Strike two.

resentment? I say we giggle.

well, he did fail, I'll give you that. Sad that so many people were forced to glom onto a failure.

it doesn't cancel Jews to say that hjews don't need Jesus. It cancels Jesus. Try to keep up.

A third attempt? So you are admitting he failed twice? And yet you still hitch your horses to that? And again, you don't understand biblical atonement, so strike three.

It is demonstrable.

Regards

DL

why do the christians insist on calling their god a "him" or a "he" ?

why do the christians refer to "god's will" as if their version of god doesn't already know exactly how every event will play out ?

I checked. No mention of Jesus there. We don't need his help. Try again.

It seems to me that atheists are hypocrites (atheists in the form of those who say there is no god). I want to write this post to see where (and if) my logic has gone astray. If we go into meditation and assume nothing (as Descartes did), I'm unsure how you can outright decide God cannot exist. As it would appear, there's not very much we can be certain of! It is evident our senses are untrustworthy (as shown by Socrates in Phaedo). To be sure of naturalism, physicalism, materialism, etc, you must first assume your senses to a pretty high degree to be correct. Yet there's really not a very philosophical reason to believe this outside of pragmatism. If the things we see cannot be proven to be mind-independent or real, Why are people so quick to assume God is a logical absurdity? It appears to me almost everything in this world (currently) requires some element of faith, this element of reality is exemplified by the problem of induction. Prove me wrong.

Polytheist-Witch: There is no evidence for any god. Best argument for, I've had a personal experience. The best argument against, I haven't had a personal experience.

Swagnarok: You want to be part of and grounded in something that's timeless and extremely hesitant to change. I can respect that.

Personally, I think that Roman Catholicism makes a lot of unproven assumptions that it holds up as fact. So you'd have a hard time proving to me that they are "the one true church". 

That being said, I think Christian denominations are largely interchangeable in that your salvation isn't contingent on what club you belong to. If turning to Catholicism revitalized your interest in Christianity, your devotion to Jesus, and your resolve to live a Godly life, then I say all the more power to you. I hope this enriches your life and your soul.

But you haven't bothered to address the point of the thread. Why did god omit to tell the gory details of her son's  wicked and torturous demise? This is not  mention all of the false promises he made to Jesus' mother the very blessed among women.

Judaism still works for the Jews. And quoting a text which has no value to Jews in order to "prove" some claim about Jews is useless.

Barney may never recover...

Its about the things god seemed to have omitted to tell Mary his mother. And  Its about all the  things that his mother Mary was promised about here son and god failed  and had forsaken  both Mary and Jesus -  for which there actually IS bible evidence from the lips of Jesus himself.  And that would include him inheriting the throne of David and becoming king, but nowhere does it say that Jesus was ever anointed king by John the baptist for which YOU claim there is "clear evidence" that he was. So lets see your "clear biblical evidence". 

Matthew 27:46  And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”

 YEP, god certainly turned his back on his own boy and the "blessed among women" his mother Mary didn't he , you clown?

 Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. 

Off you go now. And don't forget that " clear evidence " or don't come back.

RM: I am so sorry for this disrespect to you, please do not take it to heart.

Welll, when the Supreme Court has 3 of the dumbest judges to ever sit on the court, that can happen.

No, it makes us laugh. It is like watching people cheer for a boy band cover of a Beatles song. 

What rite of catholicism do you follow and which version of the Vatican documents do you adhere to?

Do you have a particular theologian you prefer? Is it Aquinas? Do you like a certain systematic theology textbook you prefer?

Should we start by pointing out that you responded with a non sequitur? Or just that you are using a rhetorical fallacy of appealing to popularity?

Does it matter to you that there are more Hindus than Christians so you are a minority?

When you are ever ready to have a productive conversation in which you deal with issues at hand and recognize your own ignorance about Judaism, let me know. Till then I'll just watch your ineffective trolling and giggle. 

So when in Kings a man is resurrected it became an actual thing in Judaism, well before Jesus was born, died and failed to fulfill anything akin to the role of messiah for so, so many reasons. And if Jesus was resurrected then he already had a second coming and failed twice. Great job.

And, yes, a prediction incorporates a concept. One cannot predict something which isn't an idea, so in Judaism, resurrection is a concept, the subject of many prophecies. You need to learn how to use words correctly. 

Contrary to very popular belief, on both sides, the 1973 Roe v. WadeSupreme Court decision will not be overturned in a single court case, even with a clear conservative majority on the Court as it has at present. Personally, I am skeptical of politics on the Court. The evidence of this attitude is apparent when one considers that, in spite of the apparent “political” leaning of the Court, it arrives at unanimous decisions a full 59% of the time over its history since 1789, when established. No other split decision of the Court has this plurality. 

Further, note that when Roewas decided, the 7-2 split decision included four Justices appointed by Republican Presidents. So much for partisanship on the Court. It is a popular, but unwarranted myth. 

Roeis a much more complicated decision to overturn. Of nearly 1,900 cases taken by the Court in its history, there have been but 200+ decisions later overturned.  There are too many variables, all of which would require a perfect storm of a single case to come before the Court in order for this generation’s Court to overturn Roe.That is not very likely to happen. 

I perceive three major points, all three of which must be completely revised in current law, not just Roe,which did not establish any law; rather, it merely agreed with several state laws, while requiring other states to amend their law on the subject.

Those three points are:

1.     The fetus is a human being and a person.

2.     The fetal/amniotic/umbilical/placental tissues share unique DNA separate and distinct from the mother.

3.     Privacy of a woman’s body does not extend to the fetus as described by the privacy discussion in the Roedecision.

Fetus is human: Once upon a time, even as late as the Roedecision, this was little more than assumption. And, while some still argue the point that a fetus is not human until birth, thus defining, they think, what it is not,they do not alternatively define by explanation what it is.

However, science has stepped in to demonstrate that by every definition of “human,” except one, the fetus exhibits every single characteristic of humanity; by DNA, by form/fit/function, and by biologic systems.

Currently, by one statute, however, a “person,” by definition, does not necessarily accept a pre-natal condition, although 1 US Code §8 does come very close to it. This will be the easiest, and likely the first point to be altered, and it may not occur in a Roe-related case.

The sub-set question becomes, if the fetus is human, does it share equal personhood rights even if unborn? Here, again, 1 US Code §8 comes up to, but does not cross that threshold. 

However, there is another statute, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which amended 18 US Code §1841 to recognize that any violence committed on a pregnant woman that also resulted in the death of the fetus would carry a dual charge of murder, which is, exclusively, the malicious cause of death with aforethought to a human being, a person.  Therefore, this statute recognizes the personhood of the unborn fetus.

Fetal… tissue is separate from mother.This point, as well, was nebulous until the human genome was completely mapped by the close of the twentieth century, twenty-plus years following the Roedecision.  By that time, DNA identification was becoming commonplace, and it was demonstrated by empiric evidence that fetal/amniotic/umbilical/placental tissues shared common DNA that was separate and distinct from the mother.

It was secondarily determined that not even blood was shared between mother and fetus, but that, rather, in the cellular attachment of the placenta to the inner uterine wall, there is a blood barrier similar to that in the lungs such that nutrients pass through the barrier, but blood does not. In the lungs, the barrier allows exchange of oxygen for carbon dioxide without internal loss of blood.

The separation feature is critical to a reversal of the Roedecision, which stipulates that a mother/fetal bond is physiologically and genetically cohesive and identical.

To tip that scale, the third point will require discussion: 

Privacy of a woman’s body. The privacy issue is nebulous, at best, even though the Roedecision cites amendments 1, 4, 5, 9, and 14 as descriptive of individual privacy even though only one, the 14th, contains any description of “privacy” at all, and in that context, the amendment verbiage relates only to one’s personal protection against unwarranted government search and seizure. One might argue that since, in many cases, the government is funding the abortion procedure, at least in some cases, that is exactly what abortion is. The other cited amendments do not even contain the words, “privacy,” or “private,” but, nor does the 14A. The discussion of the application of “privacy” is interpretive, only.

But, even physiologically, it is a leap from current demand of understanding the science to consider that the fetus is not a part of the woman’s body. Once truly understood by the simplicity of the true science, it becomes much clearer that the Roedecision got it wrong.

As noted above, fetal… tissue DNA does not match the mother’s DNA. On that basis, alone, the fetal… tissue is not part of the woman’s body. Neither is food, one might argue. Organic food does not share her DNA, either, but it clearly becomes part of the woman’s body. More correctly, it is broken down digestively to its simple components, and is then either absorbed by her body, or evacuated, or, in the case of pregnancy, shared with the fetus until it comes to full-term.

It becomes apparent that the separation of mother and fetal tissue is elegant. It is intended that food be absorbed by the body as its first objective. Not so with fetal… tissue. The fetal objective is to become a separate, distinct, and wholly self-driven individual [or more in the case of multiple simultaneous births]. It is carried in the woman’s body, surrounded by it, much like a ping-pong ball is held in the closed fist, but, by birth, the fetal… tissue, all of it, is expelled from the mother’s body.

This point will likely be the last to change its paradigm, but it is certain to do so when the science, and the apparently conflicting legal statutes, are more generally understood and accepted as fact. The difficulty is that, during the nine months of gestation, the fetal… tissue certainly seems like part and parcel of the woman’s body.  The two previous points are going to have to change their paradigms before this third point is ever modified. Even then, to surrender a privacy that has been a part of society by Court precedent for two generations, and certainly interpreted as such for far longer, is a difficult legal demand, even for a scientifically-absorbed Supreme Court.

A couple of years ago, present and former Justices of the Court rendered commentary on the Roe v. Wade decision, including then Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who determined that the Roedecision certainly warranted a re-examination by the Court, at least, and potential overturning for a variety of reasons, including some of the points reviewed here.

Some seem confused about the meaning of death preferring it to mean other than the ordinary meanings associated with the term.

Physical death- when the body no longer has breath and decays.

Spiritual death - when the spiritual relationship between God and man is severed.

Covenantal death - when the breach of the covenant brings the sanction of covenantal death within the limitations of the specific institution.

Some try and introduce another kind of death associated with ritual with higher orders with a secret society.

Please explain the different types of death you understand and the basis of this understanding.

I'm sorry, but no. I am not accepting "miracles still happen but no one notices them because of cellphones" as an answer. First of all, we got nearly 2000 years without geological scale miracles before cell phones were invented, and second, even people who are engrossed in their phones look up, especially if we're talking something as big as destroying a city with fire and brimstone or turning rivers into blood. That's not even bringing in the other 24% that don't have them, or satellite imagery recording the event.

OK, but if you ever want to explore the way a religious Jew thinks and learn about it by asking questions, feel free to let me know.

yes, that makes it a concept within Judaism. Thank you.

No, until then it is still a Jewish concept that Christianity lifted when it tried to appropriate Jewish concepts.

In Christianity it is still an unfulfilled prophecy also unless you see Jesus as being alive again. Is your argument that an idea within a system isn't a concept? 

Though, in Jewish texts there are tales of resurrection (such as 2 Kings 13), so that would make it something which happened within the Jewish system and therefore not only a prophecy of the future.

Your use of "concept" is very unclear. The fact that there has not yet been a 3rd temple built (something that Jews pray for every day) means that there is no "concept" of the 3rd temple in Judaism? That's absurd.