Total posts: 3,520
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Can anyone have a stab at this for me.Jesus dies and then this happened52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.Matthew 27:52-53What does this actually mean?One reason is to depict that the killing of the messiah was an unnatural event.So was there earthquakes and ripping of temple curtains and dead bodies entering the city when any of the other 14 "messiah's" before Jesus died?
Well the bible does not say there were any other messiahs. Not in the same way Jesus is depicted.
One reason is to depict that the killing of the messiah was an unnatural event. A crazy and ridiculous event.[ .............]The picture of graves opening and people walking around clearly pictures an absurdity. A crazy and ridiculous event. So when the people of this earth intentionally killed their messiah - the universe went crazy around them. So one reason is that this is poetically picturing the intentional killing of the messiah as absurd - which set the world off for a moment in similar fashion.I refer you to your own words here last sentence. Something about "assumption" #20
You ask questions and then you simply consider any response an assumption. I never said it was the correct answer. I said it was one reason why. I actually have a different answer.
A crazy and ridiculous event.Yes. It was. And just when we thought we had left behind us the vile atrocities of perpetual rape and perpetual killing in the Old Testament ,too. We have again in the New Testament a terrible and murderous conspiracy to rid the world of who some believed to be the true heir to the throne of Jerusalem; Jesus king of the Jews, the (failed) Jewish messiah , one of many failed messiahs who it is said had been sent to free the Jews from the Roman yoke.But then to others he was a religiopolitical agitator accused of , and found guilty of , among other charges, Lèse-majesté.
Irrelevant really to the question. and to my response. Your commentary really is quite unhelpful.
The picture of graves opening and people walking around clearly pictures an absurdity.It does! I agree. And maybe this is STILL why I am not quite getting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>"52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ is the description of what is said to have happened at the exact time Jesus is said to have died, isn't it? A yes or no will do.
I don't answer yes or no. I am not a witness to be cross-examined or to be led by a lawyer. Simplistic answers tend to get in the road of the truth and very often distort a proper examination. If Matthew records that it happened - then unless we can understand that it happened poetically, or perhaps, metaphorically, or perhaps spiritually, then it must have happened literally. I would not start with the premise that we would just dismiss it.
Are there any clues in the verses which indicate it might be other than a literal sense in the physical world? bodies of saints who have fallen asleep. Who at this time were the saints? And what does falling asleep mean? And then there is this thought - "after his resurrection". Clearly this part is not at his death - or is it? And then it uses the term "the Holy City". Whatever could the Holy City be? Is that Jerusalem? Or is it talking about something different? And then we have many witnesses? Who are they?
A crazy and ridiculous event.So ridiculous it may not be true?
That is a long bow you are drawing - perhaps you might choose to consider its meaning before drawing such conclusions.
So when the people of this earth intentionally killed their messiah - the universe went crazy around them.Not quite. There was it is said some curtain ripping and an earthquake. And didn't the sky go dark for a while? Hardly "universal".
The Jewish curtain was a pretty big deal. But is significance was very symbolic. Rocks splitting - eclipse as well all at the same time. Sounds like a perfect storm if you ask me.
I do have to say though, that all these bodies "sleeping" then suddenly leaving their tombs en masse does, as you correctly say appear to be " A crazy and ridiculous event" On the surface maybe, but below it may actually have meant something else entirely?And to me these dead rising en masse certainly takes the shine off Jesus coming alive after being dead considering this type of event can be seen to be a regular occurrence and narrated in such a matter of fact way.
People coming to life - because Jesus has died - actually has wonderful encouragement for me and believers. It was after all, the point of his death and resurrection from the believer's point of view. Since Matthew is picturing their resurrection as it were as part of the entire scene here - it was not drawing an inference that it was normal that people rise from the dead - except in Jesus and because of Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Actually you asked me to explain the idolatry.
"nope. Nothing there at all concerning idolatry . Could you dare to expand on your one word 'explanation'?" https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4911/post-links/209217
So if you don't want to discuss it - don't ask.
The particular knowledge the man had was supernatural - not ordinary. It was demonic knowledge - similar to many occasions in the NT and Acts where demons talked to Jesus or to his disciples or to Paul. There is a similarity about all of them - not being happy with Jesus - being on the planet - before what they thought was the appointed time. Mark 1:24.
v. 8 explains it was the demoniac responding to Jesus' command to come out of him. A man was filled with evil spirits. That is what the story is saying. It is not saying an animal was filled with evil spirits coming to Jesus. I said it was a man. But the man clearly has special knowledge.
Do the evil spirits have total control over the man? I don't know. The passage does not say so explicitly. It does say that he lived in the tombs and that because of the evil spirits he was strong enough to break chains. And strong enough that no one was able to subdue him. And that he would cut himself and cry out. There certainly seems to be a sense that however much control they had over the man - it was significant. Was it total? I cannot say for sure - but for you to ask me for a yes or no is unhelpful. I am not a witness to be cross examined or as you like to do - lead me along a path. If you want to say something - just say it. But don't ask me to expect me to give you yes or no answers to questions which require a fuller answer. The man seems to be out of control prior to Jesus casting the demons out of him. Whereas v. 15 indicates that after he was freed from their grasp - he was sitting there in his right mind.
When I said the man was talking about Jesus as God - I was not meaning to indicate he was not talking to Jesus. The man said to Jesus - what do you want with me Jesus, son of the most high God? He is clearly not only talking to Jesus - but describing him as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Perhaps there were no atheists before the idea of evolution in principle existed?
The fact is today - atheists as we understand them today are not the same as atheists in the ancient past.
Christians for instance were thrown to the lions for being atheists. Not believing in the Roman gods.
Today - it is a truism that all atheists are also evolutionists.
But not all evolutionists are atheists.
Similarly, not all theists are creationists - yet it is a religious doctrine.
Atheists wants to somehow give the impression that they are neutral in these things. Yet, it is not true. It is a lie to say they are neutral.
Atheists have a worldview - they deny it - for all sorts of reasons - but evolution is but one of their doctrines - a doctrine by necessity. It is impossible to be an atheist and not hold to the theory of evolution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The Christian position does not beg the question of where does God come from. In fact that thought reveals only that you do not know nor understand the Christian Position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
As ways of saying "I don't know" go saying some god(s) did it is particularly unsatisfying to me since it would seem to like an attempt to close down further investigation of the matter.
I don't hold to the God of the Gaps theory. That theory is a typical one produced by athiests and skeptics to discredit Religious people. It however is a strawman argument. And everyone seems to know it but the skeptics.
But neither do I know everything. Nor do evolutionists. For me to say - that if we find out one day - great - but I am not going to turn around and say it had nothing to do with God - just to satisfy the quirky position of an atheist. It would be dishonest of me to do that. Scientists - do not know the answer to most things and probably never will. This is not a reason to dismiss the things they think they know - they are happy to leave that for the future. I say the same thing with God - I am happy to leave it in his hands. I don't have to know everything right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There were atheists long before there was any human understanding of or scientific consensus on the matter of evolution. That invalidates your theory.Saying god made all the stuff doesn't tell us how or why there is stuff so your hypothesis offers no useful answers.
Nonsense.
The ToE as Darwin put it - might be relatively new - but the ToE had many precursors to it. Some very famous atheists in the past held to some variety of it.
In any event, it is hardly plausible that an atheist in the past is going to hold to the notion that God does not exist and then say that humanity originated and grew from God. Just pure nonsense. Even you must see the implausibility of such a view.
The ancient atheists do not need to have known the Big Bang Theory or the ascent of humanity in Darwin's point of view to be evolutionists. The fact is they denied God and by implication were evolutionists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
P16 When he [the man] saw Jesus from a distance, he [the man] ran and fell on his knees in front of him. [Jesus]7 He [the man] shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me[ he,the man], Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me[ he the man]”Do I have P1 correct thus far?
I presume you are suggesting that P1 is human and that the human is begging Jesus not to torture him. Please correct me if I assume incorrectly.
If this is your point I would say that I do not think you are correct. No ordinary man is going to know from a distance or even close that Jesus is the Son of the Most High God. This was clearly in the passage a particular knowledge known by the demons within the man - the man being used by the demons to speak. I assume the demon is talking about Jesus - as God, not sending him to the eternal lake of fire IMMEDIATELY. Incidentally, Jesus did not send them to the Lake of Fire, having no intention of torturing them at this time.
Jesus, in his ministry on earth was God. Yet, he did not function in that role on earth. He functioned as man - under the power of the Spirit of God. His miracles on earth - whatsoever the nature - were never meant to prove his divinity. It is an error to think so.
In any event, I am probably not going to take every word the demon speaks as" absolute truth". Demons, like their master, Satan, tend to mix truth with error. They don't generally come out and tell blatant lies. They generally want to seduce you - so they give you lots of truth and then start to mix it with error when they get your ear. Satan for example - in the beginning - twisted God's words - He did not necessarily tell a lie - just questioned God. That is all he did and that was enough.
As for the idolatry. I did not expect you to see it. Still, where did this story take place? In Israel or Gentile land? Who owned the pigs? Jews or Gentiles? Whoever the owner of the pigs were - did they value their pigs and property more than the cure of this poor man in the cemetery? Did they value their business more than the need for redemption and the visit of Jesus, the Savior? Idolatry is everywhere? From the moment we see the man with Legion - we can sense that. The pigs - their owners - the business - what is idolatry? If you are just going to suggest little idols made of wood and stone, then you will miss it in its substance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Can anyone have a stab at this for me.Jesus dies and then this happened52 the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.Matthew 27:52-53What does this actually mean?
One reason is to depict that the killing of the messiah was an unnatural event. A crazy and ridiculous event. An even that ought not to have happened in a normal and perfect world. The picture of graves opening and people walking around clearly pictures an absurdity. A crazy and ridiculous event. So when the people of this earth intentionally killed their messiah - the universe went crazy around them. So one reason is that this is poetically picturing the intentional killing of the messiah as absurd - which set the world off for a moment in similar fashion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I think it is an evolving idea,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Despite arguments to the contrary - Atheists believe in doctrines and dogmas.Perhaps, but not because of atheism (there are no 'atheist doctrines or dogmas').
So you say. I am rejecting that though - because the evidence is that they do have doctrines and dogmas that are necessary implications of atheism.
An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary.Beliefs are informed by reasons...sometimes good reasons and sometimes bad. The reasons compel belief - there is no 'choice'. This is the same for theists and atheists.
I assume you are making an argument here by way of determinism.
Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION. There is no contrary doctrine.How do you explain atheists who reject evolution? Are you suggesting they are not real atheists?
No if they exist - which is highly doubtful, they would simply be inconsistent atheists. A little bit like the Theistic evolutionist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
Not gonna pretend I know a heck a lot of religion, I don't bother myself with that.Really. And who forces them to not believe in God? The evidence of what? or Who?The literal evidence.It is an assumption. Presumption that leads you to such a point. The Evidence I would suggest is everywhere for the existence of God. And there is no Evidence which exists that suggests otherwise.It is also an assumption that god exists.When people struggle to see evidence and yet others see it everywhere - there is clearly something amiss. When I say evil is evidence for the existence of God and you say evil is evidence that God does not exist - then something is amiss. For you to say that therefore that since evil exists, that God does not is contradictory to the view that I take that says that since evil exists, so does God.Are you calling atheists dumb?
Not dumb. Just biased.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Why is evolution the only doctrine? What does this even mean?
I don't believe I said evolution was the only doctrine. I said it is a doctrine of atheism by implication. Atheists insist that that are not a worldview and have no shared doctrines with other atheists. Interestingly, even that is a doctrine per se. Still, I think atheism has many doctrines. I just want us to explore it. It seems however that most people are quite shocked by the thought that someone might suggest this at all. Skeptical even.
I don't believe in evolution dogmatically. Why do I have to believe in evolution? If the theory of evolution was disproved tomorrow I would believe based on the new evidence. It is not the theory itself that has convinced me it is the efficacy of the theory's predictive power and the evidence provided independent from a plethora of branches of science.
Why should you believe in evolution dogmatically? And why should that matter anyway. The fact is - you do. There is no alternative for you to believe in. Evolution won't be disproved to your satisfaction tomorrow - it takes more than proof to disprove a doctrine. Doctrines have a tendency towards harmonization. In fact with great respect - despite your sincere belief that you would stop believing in evolution tomorrow if it were disproved- I actually don't think you realize what you are saying. I accept you are sincere.
It is also completely besides the point to being an atheist. If the theory of evolution were proved wrong tomorrow that would do nothing to convince me that some god(s) exist. It is not necessary that I believe in evolution in order to reject claims which have not met their burden of proof. If I were somehow convinced that evolution were not taking place in real time or that evolution is not the best explanation available to explain the diversity of species we see on earth it would be one more thing I didn't believe it would not cause me to believe in something totally unrelated.
This is not about theists or about proving God exists. This is about the atheistic worldview. Scientists cannot disprove evolution - because it a doctrine - a dogmatic doctrine that is implicit for Atheists.
I'm most interested to know what you mean by provide an alternative to evolution alsoAn alternative for how one kind of life evolves into another? That is thankfully somewhat explainable though you might be better served seeking out geneticists and paleontologists if you are really interested in the subject. If you wanted to disprove the theory I would start there.
I am not here trying to disprove anything. Least of all evolution. I am merely asserting that evolution is a doctrine of Atheism.
If however you are referring to an alternative theory of the origins of life then you certainly don't understand what the theory of evolution actually states as it is not a theory about the origins of life at all but only how simple organisms can evolve into more complex ones through imperfect gene replication and the (non)guiding force of natural pressures causing some adaptations to be more successful in a given environment. I do not know how or where life originated and neither do you. In fact "god(s) did it" isn't any kind of answer even if it turned out to be technically true.PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION AND ANY GIVEN HYPOTHESIS CONCERNING HOW ORGANIC LIFE ORIGINALLY CAME TO EXIST.
I understand the difference between origins and evolution. You and I have discussed it before. The theory of origins and evolution are interconnected. Even simple forms of life require a beginning.
As for the notion that "God did it" as being a non-answer - that is debatable. It requires assumptions I don't have to explore. Of course you do not know how life originated. You say neither do I. I say - yes, God created life. You say - you can't know that or prove that. I say - the evidence is all around us. You just roll your eyes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
An atheistic worldview has the following elements:
a non-belief in God or gods.
and by implication - as indeed all worldviews are extrapolated: a belief in evolution.
The two are not separate. All atheists MUST believe in evolution. No atheist has ever produced an alternative position.
The fact that many theists also believe in evolution does not change the fact that ALL atheists believe in evolution.
IT is by necessity an implication of the non-belief in God. What I want to explore is further implications - that demonstrate the atheistic worldview which atheists deny because they prefer to keep their heads in the ground like the proverbial ostrich.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
Like ludo said, an atheist doesn't choose not to believe god, they are forced not to believe god because the evidence to them points in that direction.
Really. And who forces them to not believe in God? The evidence of what? or Who?
It is an assumption. Presumption that leads you to such a point. The Evidence I would suggest is everywhere for the existence of God. And there is no Evidence which exists that suggests otherwise.
When people struggle to see evidence and yet others see it everywhere - there is clearly something amiss. When I say evil is evidence for the existence of God and you say evil is evidence that God does not exist - then something is amiss. For you to say that therefore that since evil exists, that God does not is contradictory to the view that I take that says that since evil exists, so does God.
The question is what is it that is amiss? And I am sure you have all sorts of reasons. Yet, I think it is because you define God so narrowly that you cannot see God. In fact you define him out of the possibility of existing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What other doctrines exist - for the atheist?The reality of day to day existence......No pinning of hopes on supernatural deities necessary.And as I stated elsewhere, you misinterpret atheism.Atheism is nothing whatsoever to do with evolution....Two separate concepts.And material evolution is self evident, as all theists know but are often reluctant to admit.You're flogging a dead horse with this one.
You define everything so narrowly as to ensure you could never see any evidence for God. Even your definition of God and religion is different to what people of religion define it.
I have said on many occasions that religion and worldview are identical. This is how it defined for most people in the world. The secular position is much more narrow - in fact so narrow that it actually (in my view) begins with the presumption that excludes itself from being a religion or a worldview. Talk about begging the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Of course an atheist chooses to not believe. He or she looks at the evidence as they see it - with a presumption - not with objective eyes. Hence it is a choice.
IT is this presumption - that there is no God - that makes them conclude as a matter of a circular argument - that there is no evidence to support the reality of God.
Take away the presumption or assumption and the evidence is suddenly everywhere because everything speaks of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
-->@zedvictor4 wrote: Stephen just enjoys pointing out these flaws.....Pigs and demons are one of his latest issues.Stephen is harmless. He has a position. It would be nice if he actually put it - rather than trying to assume the mantle of teacher.I think that you will find most of my threads concerning the scriptures, god, and Christianity are all question based. This is because I want and do expect answers. Teachers do not seek answers as a rule.
The point of teaching is to teach. Seeking answers is a normal way of assessing whether students have in fact leant. You have indicated on occasion that you don't like people asking you questions. You like to ask questions. You don't like to answer questions. In fact you become irate when I have asked you questions.
He very rarely reveals his sources - it would be nice if he was more transparent.My sources all come from the scriptures. I scrutinise , question and criticize the scriptures. If for some reason I have to gather support from other - outside - sources, I will ALWAYS produce those sources, even though when I do so, my outside sources are always dismissed for any amount of reasons although they may have come from learned scholars and academics in the theological field AND indeed the clergy of the church. Example : From priests who call them selves "father " and are addressed as such, although the bible clearly states that we should call "no one father". Matthew 23:9. And also teachers that call themselves "Rabbi" though Jesus himself said "you are not to be called 'Rabbi"Matthew 23:8. We are told to honour our father and mother and not to curse them on one hand, yet, on the other , the same person tell us:"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple".Luke 14:26I can't wait for your interpretation of that little christian biblical dilemma.
You put questions. This is true. And it is fair to say that you put questions from the bible - questions that have been raised in your mind. You do not always produce your sources - very often I have asked and not received. Most of your response here is WAFFEL. And does not deserve a response. Many times I have asked for your source and you refuse to provide it. I cannot recall even one source you have provided that I criticized. Please provide an example.
He is also loathe to harshly criticize and is rash to putting people into boxes.I do freely admit to criticizing the scriptures and your god. I also scrutinise closely as I possibly as I can what is written and purported to have been said by each and every character that I happen to be questioning and scrutinizing at the time. I think you just don't like the fact that I highlight the glaring faults (and some not so glaring) that your so called holy texts have to offer as "gospel truth".
I never show concern about faults - and freely acknowledge the same when I miss them . An example recently occurred when the Brother showed Elizabeth's Levitical background which I had strongly denied. I was wrong and freely admitted it. I am not going to admit something you have not proved.
But overall I welcome Stephen's position - I just wish he was not arrogant with his attitude.It would be nice of you not to put words into the mouths of the authors and the characters in the scriptures and the proceed to discuss what no one ever has written and no one has ever said in the scriptures. Example, making up the BS that to "curse" in the bible means to kill ones parents Leviticus 20:9. This was just a blatant lie but you made pages of posts trying to prove this to be true.SO. Any arrogance comes from you believers, you actually believe that you know something all the unbelievers don't know and proceed to convince unbelievers of what it is you believe you know. and I suppose that all goes swimmingly until, that is, you are called out and caught cold on something that you have tried to pass of as "gospel truth", simply doesn't ring true, and then out pour the excuses, the reinterpretations, the rewriting and the outright lies.
Ok. But you should not make assumptions either which are contrary to what the teaching of the church has indicated was said. I in most parts are merely passing on the teaching of what i have received. I do not have an agenda. I really don't.
Created:
Posted in:
Despite arguments to the contrary - Atheists believe in doctrines and dogmas.
An atheist chooses not to believe in God despite the evidence to the contrary.
Yet, an atheist MUST believe in the doctrine of EVOLUTION. There is no contrary doctrine.
So, not only is there a non-belief in a deity -
but there is also an affirmation of a positive doctrine - evolution.
What other doctrines exist - for the atheist?
Let us explore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As I stated, you misinterpret atheism.Atheism is nothing whatsoever to do with material evolution....They are completely separate issues....They can be associated, just as theism and evolution can be associated....Just as theism and music can be associated....Just as we can associate atheism and theism with anything, including each other....Nonetheless atheism is not a belief in evolution, whereas theism is a belief in imaginary deities.in basic terms, atheists simply do not accept the existence of imaginary deities.
What you say makes no sense to me.
Atheism does not believe in God. Yet the world came to exist somehow. Therefore EVERY Atheist believes in material evolution. There is no alternative for them. They are not separate issues. That is an assumption. Presumption. And a bad one at that. Theism and evolution can be associated - but atheism and Creation cannot be associated. Ipso Facto. It is impossible for an atheist to deny God and affirm creation. The two cannot consistently be compatible. Atheist - MUST believe EVOLUTION. It is the number one dogma of an atheist. It is something that all evolutionists believe. As I said - implications.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Seems very odd that they for some reason needed permission to enter the pigs yet nowhere does it mention that these demons asked anyone's or needed permission to enter and possess this poor man?
Idolatry answers the question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, belief is a dodgy word.
Waffle. This could be applied to any word. It is a cop out.
I currently prefer the idea of purpose rather than chance, simply based upon the illogic of the something from nothing principle. I therefore refer to purpose as the GOD principle........Not to be confused with any specific deity........And material evolution occurs in plain sight so does not require belief.
Yes, I know you prefer this - so what? I prefer other things. So what? This is waffle.
I would suggest that you actually misinterpret atheism.....Atheists simply do not accept your version of things, so no belief is required.
Your suggestion is waffle. I don't think I misinterpret atheism. Since Atheists have no beliefs or consistent position - how can you make such a generalised statement.
Nonetheless, at the end of the day it does all boil down to something from nothing, whether that be a big bang or a big god, or a big whatever.So in terms of creation I do not believe anything nor do I have any suggestions other than a principle of material creation.
All my point above was that the implication of atheism is a belief in evolution. This is a belief or doctrine that all atheists must hold to. Implication.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Who said I did not like or understand your post. The fact is - it said nothing. that is why i said it was waffle. And with the greatest respect - that is what is was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes, well said squire.
My evidence of course is documentary evidence - the Bible - where it says that God created all things.
As for me being harmless - absolutely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Hello Stephen,
Let's get this straight. Are you saying that you took a position that I said - and began to use it as an premise for a topic?
I accept that it makes sense that someone who baptizes another ought to be baptized- and within a church setting that is correct. Or at least ought to be correct.
Nevertheless, the word baptism in the NT is quite unexpected from a word we would expect to equate the ordination of a Levite priest.
John is the Baptizer. But is his baptism (what he does) always and in every way to be understood as congruent with the ordination of the Levite priests?
I am not convinced that John was baptized as we understand baptism. Yes, I have no issue particularly with him being ordained as a Levite priest, save and except we do not have any evidence for it whatsoever. We can only assume it - because he was a Levite, and because he was baptizing others. But I cannot take it any further without further information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So - then an atheist - does by implication believe something else - evolution but not just anything. This is exactly what I am talking about - implications. It is never just atheism - but implications.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Gods are a standard imaginary creation that fulfil a particular human need.
Says you - without any evidence. I could say the same thing about atheism.
Gods can be all things to all men.
Says you again - without any evidence.
Nonetheless if you are prepared to accept the bible warts and all as an accurate account of something, then you must also accept the illogic and contradiction contained therein.
I accept the bible as God's Word to humanity. How accurate it is - depends upon who is doing the speaking at any particular time. For example, the story of Job contains many characters. I do not take the view that the friends of Job are speaking infallibly, even if I do agree that they are speaking from a genuine and good intention. Nor do I believe that the Pharisees and other rules in Israel are speaking infallibly - although again I try not to judge their reasoning or motives. I take the view that we ought to consider that most people do things out of a good intention even if they are sincerely wrong in their intention.
I understand that many people find contradictions in the bible. I typically start with harmonization because I do think that the bible is in principle the word of God. This is what scientists do with evolution - they don't see a contradiction as a reason to dismiss it - they see it as a means to ask more questions until they find harmonization. Harmonization is a natural way people respond to issues to do with their worldview. Socialists for example never just suddenly dismiss socialism because someone finds a totally glaring evil about it. They just harmonize it. For example - they say - well that is not real socialism.
Stephen just enjoys pointing out these flaws.....Pigs and demons are one of his latest issues.
Stephen is harmless. He has a position. It would be nice if he actually put it - rather than trying to assume the mantle of teacher. He very rarely reveals his sources - it would be nice if he was more transparent. He is also loathe to harshly criticize and is rash to putting people into boxes. But overall I welcome Stephen's position - I just wish he was not arrogant with his attitude.
So what is your angle on pigs and demons?
Pigs are created by God - and so are demons. This is his prerogative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Well thanks for your thoughts.
I would take the view that an atheist, not believing in God must therefore believe in evolution. And it also follows they must not believe in Hell or in Heaven.
Is it possible for an atheist to believe anything else apart from evolution? If so, can you provide an example?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If an atheist does not believe in god, then certain implications flow. Would you disagree with that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If the Christian bible is an accurate account of the will of your god, then Stephens's claims are undeniably correct and your interpretation would therefore be logically flawed.
Well I deny absolutely that the God of the Bible is megalomaniacal.
Psychiatry. a symptom of mental illness marked by delusions of greatness, wealth, etc.an obsession with doing extravagant or grand things.
The God of the Bible has not has not been diagnosed with a mental illness, which would be pre-requisite of such a disorder. The God of the Bible is not marked by delusions of greatness. If we take the bible to be truthful about anything - it certainly indicates that God created everything. This per se is not a delusion of greatness - it describes greatness. If he made everything - he also owns everything - wealth is not a delusion. He does do grand things - he does awesome things. None of this is delusional.
You say he is a lunatic.(no longer in technical use; now considered offensive) an insane person.a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness.a person legally declared to be of unsound mind and who therefore is not held capable or responsible before the law: a former legal term.adjective Also lu·nat·i·cal [loo-nat-i-kuhl] (for defs. 4, 5, 7).(no longer in technical use; now considered offensive) insane.characteristic or suggestive of lunacy; wildly or recklessly foolish.Older Use. designated for or used by the insane:
God is not insane. He is not reckless. He is sound in all of his actions and in all of his thoughts.
You have nothing to support such ridiculous assertions.
Furthermore, you say he "demands my fealty on pain of eternal torture".
Let's leave alone both meglomania and lunatic for a moment. Let's just examine demands my fealty on pain of eternal torture.
Let's break this up. Is it wrong to demand or request fealty? When would it be right and when would it be wrong? Are there times when such a thing is warranted?
Now let's examine "on pain of eternal torture". You obviously understand this as Hell.
I do accept that Hell is real. As I do Heaven. Yet neither of those are reasons for why I am loyal to God. It has nothing to do with the reward or with the punishment. Incidentals are not the reason why Christians believe what they do. If you think this, then you do not understand the Christian message. We are often told by the secular mindset that they would do the right thing just because it is the right thing - and not because they get a reward or a punishment for it. Doing the right thing is enough of a reason to do it. This is a pretty poor argument if this only applied to secular thinking and not to all people. Yet, if it applies to all people - then it might hold some water. The Secularist has to accept that Christians and every other religion are capable of doing the same for the the same reason. And once they do - then the argument of compulsion FALLS over. And if it does not - then suggesting that anyone does the right thing just because it is right - also fall over. This makes everyone guilty of
The consequences of ignoring your own conscience is real.
The other dodgy thing about this comment is - imagine if we applied to this to our own world - and yes I think it is ok to do that. When the government says - do not kill or do not rape or do not have sex with children under the age of consent - if the government says - hey when you break these laws - the implication is - the punishment will - be life in prison or the death penalty or a great big fine - are we able to make the statement - the state demands loyalty to its laws based upon pain of the punishment?" Because that would be the same argument you are making. But I find it totally incorrect - I will do the right thing because that is what I will do - I will be loyal to the State even though I never voted for them - - not because of the punishment but because it is the right thing to do.
I take the view that it is the right thing to do to be loyal to the king of kings. He is someone I find totally find worthy to be loyal to. But you know - even if he was not I would have no reason not to be loyal to him. I am loyal to our current PM - even though I did not vote for him. I won't vote for him next time either - but the system which is in place is one I find acceptable. And when I look at the bible - I see a system that makes sense to me.
It is just and it is fair - superfair infact - and full of mercy and forgiveness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
No doubt really. Yet, I am not an atheist and nor do I serve and worship any god that is described as above. Which means that his logic is flawed.
What none of you ever really get is the flip side of the picture you paint. If the presumption that God is good holds true, then God will be seen to be good by those who love him and evil by those who don't. If the presumption is that God is not good but how you describe him, then everyone would see him as evil, and there would no place for good.
Those opposed to God, don't see the good, refuse to see the good and cannot explain it even if they could see it.
Those in favor of God, see the good, can explain it and can also see where others are coming from and still see the good and explain it.
It is easy for someone who does not love God to see him as evil et al. It is however very rare to see any favorable comments about God from you. Despite the many and overwhelming examples in the bible. This demonstrates the bias.
How can such an evil god do any good? That is the question. And one which is not answered except in a negative manner. In other words, even his goodness is seen as motivated by his own evil agenda. I am not sure if you could even see this if you wanted to .
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
just for the record - I am not an American. I am from the southern hemisphere. In the area known as Oceania.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) the cosmos is controlled by a megalomaniacal lunatic who demands my fealty on pain of eternal torture (THEN) FUCK THAT GUY.
I guess this makes every person an atheist then. I certainly don't have any regard for such a depiction of a person.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Do parents have any responsibility to their children?
I see it more as does a governor of a prison have any responsibility towards Prisons living on death row.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not dismissing you - just Atheism.
You see rather reasonable. I enjoy corresponding with you.
Yet, on the basis of my reasoning - I am able to dismiss atheism as a worldview or something I would engage in myself. Although I am happy to engage in discussions of it.
I don't think it is right to dismiss people just on the basis of what they do or do not believe. However I do think that what people believe or don't believe inevitably has implications in the way they live and lead their lives. And there is nothing wrong with that. It is after all quite a consistent and normal way to live a life.
Not all people are consistent - in fact very few people are consistent in the way they believe or not believe and they way they live their lives.
I consider myself a skeptic as well. Skepticism has its uses and shortfalls.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Atheism has no morality. Nor does it purport to do so. It is a non-system of individuals who share no common doctrines or dogma. They simply state they are non-faith people.
Hence, it is impossible for them to argue they have morality - they don't - not as atheists. The only morality they could possibly use is morality they have borrowed from other worldviews. This is their cake - they cannot eat it as well. Either they have morality - which means they have a shared doctrine or dogma or they have no morality of their own - but borrow it from everywhere else.
How of course they are able to measure whether it is good or not - is going to be interesting. They will try and say science - but this is nonsense. Not because science is nonsense - because it is not - but because science is objective - allegedly. Morality is subjective. And cannot be tested scientifically.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not trying to prove God exists or does not exist. My point was simply to convey why I have dismissed most of the religions of this world as not being capable of establishing that they are the one and true religion with the ultimate truth. I fully accept that the ones which remain on the table - may or may not have the truth as well. But the fact is that me dismissing some or most religions has a rational basis for it.
And it is the same reason why I am able to dismiss atheism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Then you have missed my point. If I am right you get to decide exactly what your life means. Neither atheism nor skepticism necessitates nihilism.
That is not true though is it? You cannot decide to be an animal. You cannot decide to be the opposite sex. You cannot decide to be taller or shorter. you cannot decide to be smarter or not. You cannot decide which country you were born into or when you will die.
You can only subjectively for the moment you live decide whether or not you want to make it meaningful or not. And this does not make it meaningful - not really. After all, in 100 years no one is going to know who you are and what you have done - unless you are a super important person. And no one will care either. Unless there is meaning to history - there is no point in attempting to improve it - or try and not repeat mistakes. What would be the point of saving the planet for future generations? Some altruistic meaning for you is not going to hit it with others. And why should people not just do whatever they want - not regarding laws if they can get away with it?
If there is no God and we are all but specks in a moment - then I have nothing to live for but myself. My children - I might love - but to be honest - if I have no purpose other than what I decide myself - then morality is a nonsense. This would mean being a narcissist, a pycho-path, a pedophile is ok so far as I don't get caught and end up in prison.
There would be no need to help others or to restrain myself. And no one could say otherwise - if I decide for myself what my purpose is. The restraints of society would have no holds over me. I would obey the laws so far as they help me - but I would break them if I could get away with it. I would not need a conscious. Whatever for? If I die and everyone hates me - so what? If I live a life in the way that I want and find enjoyment and pleasure in - then this would be my path.
To say that my belief in God restrains me - is true. Yet it also provides purpose and meaning and a pleasure to live, plus hope in an otherwise ordinary world. And yet, if I were today to throw of the yoke of oppression of religion and belief - I would find no desire to do what others want me to do. I would be for want of a better word - my own god. I would make my own rules and live anyway I please- without any regard for anyone else. This would be consistent with that position. After all I would have a few short years - and then I would be gone - blotted out forever - having a name after you are dead is meaningless. Having children is meaningless. Who will care? If I get canceled by this generation or all future generations - who cares? What about children and their futures? What about them? Do I want them to have a good life? I do now because of my beliefs -and the fact that I have hope to see them again in the future. But if there is no god - then honestly, they become a burden to stop me from pursuing my own happiness.
Psycho-path - narcisist - nut job - selfish, greedy, mental - pervert - extremist - yes- and all of the above.
You see you might think that neither atheism or skepticism necessitates nihilism. But it certainly does not prevent it - and it certainly encourages the thinking - of "there is no wrong - there is no right - and so far as I don't get caught - who cares? It does not provide a basis for looking after a world. OR for the future. When it says it does - it has to borrow from other worldviews because atheism is DEVOID of beliefs. Isn't? You keep saying "Atheism is a non-system of non-beliefs". But what you never go on to address is the implications of it. But if you have no- beliefs - you have nothing. An eclectic mix of every other worldviews' beliefs and doctrines is a fraudulent way of living life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
the point of their religion is to get back to Nirvana, into the nothingness of life - It resists absolute truth.According to many proponents of the concept of nirvanaNirvana = truthJust as according many proponents of the YahwehYahweh's word = truth
Truth yes, but not absolute truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Islam on the other hand, (...) believes in reincarnationCitation needed. I do not think you are correct.
I was referring to the knowledge I have picked up over the years. It is something I heard along the paths. It surprised me at the time. Since they talk about heaven and Hell. Yet, there are variants which do believe it. The citation I will get to in due course. A quick look on the internet says Muslims don't believe in reincarnation and yet some sites say they do. https://www.god-muslims.com/islam-and-reincarnation/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Any religion which holds to the view of ONE GOD or ONE primary Law or Principle.You must be a fan of Ahura Mazda. [LINK]
No I am not. By the way I have not indicated that believing in ONE GOD is the only test of truth. It is but part of a journey. I have never got into Zorastianism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
...the point of their religion is to get back to Nirvana, into the nothingness of life - It resists absolute truth.NIRVANA = ONENESS WITH THE ESSENCE OF THE COSMOSChristians say they believe in UNIFICATION WITH GOD after death.IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME GOAL.
Sounding like and is the same are quite different. In The Christian position the individual remains individual. Christians never become GOD or part of God. God remains distinct from his creation. In Nirvana, the individual becomes the whole. There is no distinction. Christian thinking is based in covenant - the one and the many. Hinduism is based in the corporate. There are no individuals in Nirvana.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I have no desire to get into a slanging match with you.
I said you made up the notion that "We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself". https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4889/post-links/207206
I did not say it myself. I don't even believe I inferred it. I am not saying it is wrong either. I am just asking you to prove it. Or to show where you got it from.
I do not know why you keep confusing John's own personal baptism of which there is no evidence verses what John did - he was the baptizer? It seems from my point a view a rabbit hole to go looking for where John was baptized as opposed to what he was doing which is part of the text.
Yes, I indicated Jesus was baptized by John and that I am of the view that this was his anointing as a priest. This was based on several factors. Firstly, Jesus never sinned according to the NT, hence John's baptism of him was not about washing away sin. Secondly, Jesus told John after John initially refused to baptize him, (why would he do that if he believe Jesus was the same as everyone else - a sinner?) and Jesus told him it needs to be done to fulfill righteousness. The word righteousness is a legal term not one about holiness. It refers to a law that had to be fulfilled. Thirdly, the only law that seems to fit with what was going on here was the OT one in relation to anointing of priests, because we had a Levite Priest, we had a water ceremony, and we had a candidate who was 30 years of age. The problem however was Jesus was not Levite and John was not mixing his water with oil. And there was no official witness.
John did decide to baptize Jesus. God the Father spoke as a witness. The Holy Spirit descended - upon Jesus, symbolic of the Oil of God. And Jesus was ordained into the priestly Order of Melchizadek because he was of the line of David, not Levi.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus is not asking about John's baptism - in the sense of who baptised John? If we are correct in assuming that the OT Levites baptized or annointed him (John) a priest in accordance with the OT Law - then it is a non-question and would make the discussion between Jesus and the pharisees nonsensical. The pharisees ought to have known how John was baptised and by what authority he did things? So they would have answered Jesus by saying - it was divine - or from heaven because the OT law came from God. They would not have any qualms in answering the question - so the discussion that led them to say nothing - because they were afraid of the crowds would make no sense. Interestingly they did not even consider his priesthood background - just his alleged status as a prophet. They could have quickly just dismissed Jesus by saying - John was a Levite, his authority comes from God with his being annointed by the priests as witness of the same in accordance with his tribe. Hence - why I say this was not Jesus endorsing John's authority as a priest. And certainly not referring to his annointing.
It only makes sense in the context of them questioning Jesus' authority - Why could Jesus go into the temple and cleanse it? Who gave him that authority? Yes, Jesus seems to tie it to John the Baptist and his baptism? Did he tie it to John's Levitical priesthood? If so, it is not clear for those listening. The Pharisees did not connect Jesus to John's personal baptism. IT did not even enter their brains. Certainly did not come out of their mouths. It makes sense that they were talking about what he did - the baptizer - his type of baptism of the people of Israel including Jesus.
And if the Pharisees did not connect John with the Levitical priesthood, it is quite possible that no one else would have either. Jesus would have known his background - because of his family connections. John the B appeared as it were - straight out of the history pages of Israel - looking like Elijah. The people saw him as a prophet. The Pharisees and religious leaders of Israel probably saw him as a curiosity more than anything else. I can't see how it in any way endorses or confirms how John was baptised or by whom he was baptised.
In fact the ordination of a Levitical priest was not simply water and was never called a baptism. It contained oil as well according to the OT passages. I link it with Jesus - because his baptism is different to the other people baptised. None of the others were called the Son of God - none of the others were witnessed by the Holy Spirit. Jesus' ordination was significantly different to the OT Levitical ordinations in many ways.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Gods are made up.Religious myths are largely made up.Everything that you and all of us continue to contrive, is made up.Data in, data assimilation, data resequencing, data out = making it up.Accusing Stephen of making it up is a very childish argument.
Perhaps it is childish. But if he refuses to answer the question but expects others only to answer questions - and never produces the evidence. And refuses to publish his sources - then I am quite entitled to say he makes it up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I did the coronavirus test in the nearby clinic. As I am not in the country that my passport is registered in, I would need to send my results to the embassy and wait for the result. That being said, it is a difficult journey. I have not been active for full hours one because of sleep but also because of days of traveling in 1-hr trips between my house and the clinic.The embassy has a "rule", in which the coronavirus test must be submitted there within 12 hours of the result being undisclosed. My parents got it with an easy procedure, but I would have to have something more difficult in order to just get my result.When I am back, it is already over 12 hours since the result is clear. I tried to submit the result out of desperation, and the embassy verified the result despite it is outside of the 12 hour range.What does this tell us? Rules sometimes just make you better, it is not 100% black and white.
Hi Intelligence_06
I think most people have a strange understanding of the bible. It is not about rules - yes there are many rules in it - but predominantly, it is about living in a loyal relationship with God, the maker of the heavens and the earth.
I often say "Jesus did walk on the water, but every other time he took the boat". This is a good principle - which says to me that sometimes things need to be done in an extraordinary way - (or there are exceptions) but mostly there are normal and ordinary ways of doing things. I think rules are helpful. They make things more orderly - but like Jesus meant in relation to the Sabbath - is the rule going to help man or break man? The good Samaritan Parable is a wonderful example. It shows that love - and care and compassion is more important than the literal interpretation of the law. In that parable two religious folk bi-passed helping a wounded man because they took the view that God cared more for rule keeping than for compassion. They feared God - but in a way that was detrimental to loving God and loving others. The Samaritan who eventually helped the wounded man had pity and compassion despite probably not knowing any of the religious rules. When we love others - we love God - this is the point of what Jesus says in Matthew 25:34 ff.
For example, the Bible tell us to not have sex before marriage, not watch pornography, and not commit adultery. With common sense, of course, you could do those, but they could potentially make you less loyal in a commited relationship, which makes you a less trustworthy person.
Interesting example and curious implication. I actually take the view that it would make you more committed to your relationship and more trustworthy. In fact I am unable to see the logic of how it would make you less committed and less trustworthy. Perhaps you could walk us through the logic.
For another example, the Bible tells us not to eat shrimp or pork, but that is just because they have yet to have a procedure to make them as clean as other kinds of food, and since the Bible is basically an engraved book, it could not live long enough to see when the FDA can make pork and shrimp as healthy and clean. In other words, at the time the bible is written, those foods are unclean, which, if you eat it, will make you sick, thus live a subpar life.
This was an OT law based on the clean / unclean principle. Nothing to do with hygiene. It was about spiritual cleanness - and was based on the curse of the ground from Genesis. A cursory look at the various animals and birds will see that very often - the distinction between the two had to with the type of feet covering they had. The ground was cursed from the Time of Adam. When Jesus arrived - he reversed this part of the curse - clean v unclean distinction disappeared. Hence why Peter had a vision which said the law had been fulfilled in Christ - not abolished - but it mean "Believers could eat pork and Gentiles could be believers.
Another example is that swearing or insulting is bad. It is? Yes, but saying "fuck" one time probably won't land you in hell immediately. The more you swear, the harder it is to people to approach you in a polite manner, which would mean you will live a life without companions. There are rationalities of All things in Theism, some of them outdated, but all of them could be considered at the time they were written with at least an indirect reason.
The bible does not condone swearing for a number of reasons - one is that swearing in the OT and even the NT had in the first place - a demonstrated loyalty to another God - this is what swearing is about mostly - when we swear on the bible - we say we will tell the truth because we are loyal to God and may God judge us if we don't . Insulting others - such as calling them idiots or whatsoever - is attacking the image of God. But it is not a way of showing love to each other.
You are probably correct - swearing will probably not land in Hell immediately. It is sinful though. And sin has an inevitable implication. And either we deal with it personally or we have someone else deal with it. Christians use their lawyer. Their advocate whose name is Jesus. Everyone else either ignores it or tries to deal with themselves.
I hope you get your test result soon - and that it shows that you are negative. Or else I hope you are young enough to be able to bear the complications of Covid-19. I tend to agree with you - rules are rules - but there are exceptions. And there are overriding principles of love - and compassion. Yet even these are not absolute. As anyone knows a judge can only show so much mercy and compassion towards a criminal - who refuses to learn to do good. Sin is however for most of us a recidivist activity. Sometimes the only way is to ultimately snuff them out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Thanks for the quote. But you still need to address the letter to the Hebrews.
I will take the words of that letter over and above your inference that the OT Law gives exclusive rights to the Levites.
Yet, as I said I agreed in principle - but another interesting thing you seem to forget is that Jesus is the great high priest - to the world not just the Jews. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that the Levitical order was not sufficient and required the older and more ancient order of Melchizadek.
I know you like to focus on Jesus being to the Jews only - yet his mission clearly engaged with more than the Jews.
You don't know what my God teaches - you throw things out - and think you know - but ignore what I tell you. It is like you want my God to believe certain things and conveniently forget the thing I raise about my own belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I take the view that absolute [MORAL] right and wrong exists as a matter of logic.REAL-TRUE-FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.EVERYTHING ELSE IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM OPINION (GNOSIS/QUALIA).
The statement of logic is - "There are no absolutes". Or "there is one absolute". Both are statements of a certain logic - but both are self-contradictory. Both prove logically that absolutes must exist. It does not tell us which absolutes exist or even how we can find them. And to be honest it does not really matter that they don't. What matters is that it implies logically that absolute truth and principles and laws exist.
Hence, if a religion or worldview declares ipso facto that no such things exist then logically I am able to deduce that as a matter of reason, they are not the correct religion.NEARLY ALL RELIGIONS DECLARE ABSOLUTE MORAL RIGHTS AND WRONGS.ISLAM for example. HINDUISM for example. Let's try to eliminate these two with your "logical" methodology.
I would not have put Islam into the category of relativism. Hindu of course is a religion which clearly does not believe in absolute right and wrong. It is a religion based on the notion of polytheism - many gods - many rights and wrongs - all relative depending upon which god you are serving. the point of their religion is to get back to Nirvana, into the nothingness of life - It resists absolute truth.
Islam on the other hand, although it believes in reincarnation - also believes in ONE God. It does hold to absolute truth. I would not reject it per se on the basis of the above logic. I would need to continue my reasoning. Please remember that this topic is asked at least I thought on the good faith position of explaining why one comes to their particular position and why one rejects other religions. It was not I believed to be a cross examination of my beliefs. I accept that the opening poster probably had an ulterior motive of demonstrating that people just accept the religion they grow up with and reject others because of the same reasoning. I accept that for part of our society this is true. But not all of it.
This rules out most of the religions and worldviews in the world.Please name ONE.
New Age philosophy, wicca, Hinduism, Buddhism, All the liberal forms of Christianity, such as Unitarianism. Cults of Christianity like the Mormons. Atheism. Most forms of animalism, the Asian forms of religion based on worship of ancestors, etc etc.
Not all obviously, but it certainly clears the deck somewhat.Please name ONE.
The ones which remain after the deck clearing - are Christianity, Islam, Ancient Hebrew (Modern Hebrew possibly - but it tends towards relativism in its Noah principles) Perhaps the JWs. Any religion which holds to the view of ONE GOD or ONE primary Law or Principle.
This leaves only religions and worldviews which declare absolute right and wrong and also exclusivity.WHICH IS ALMOST ALL OF THEM.
Agreed. It is a good way of clearing the decks.
You have yet to refute this logically.You have yet to demonstrate this logically.
The logicality is consistency. the rule of self-contradiction. You need to demonstrate that the rule of self-contradiction does not apply in the above statements. And nor that the law of self contradiction is not a helpful tool in the matters we are discussing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I thought you wanted me to leave if I was going to ask questions. I know how you dread it when anyone asks you to prove anything.
I don't think you have any evidence to support the idea that you need to be baptized to baptize someone else. Who baptized John? Who baptized Aaron?
For the record - you might be correct - but produce the evidence first. I do not think that Jesus' words imply that John had been baptized. I think he is asking about John's baptisms of other people - of whether they are godly or not? Not as it seems you are suggesting - of his own person baptism.
So yes, I think you are making it up. Your post starts with
We have been told here that at least one of the requirements for one to be able to perform baptism is for the one baptising to have been baptised himself. https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4889/post-links/207206
Who told you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Just because you want it to be the case so badly, does not make it so.
Address the writer to the Hebrews. You keep having a go at me - but you won't touch that one at all. Everytime you just skip right on past.
It is not me with the blinkers on - it is you.
Hebrews clearly states Jesus is not a Levite - If he was then there would be no need to talk about the order of Melchizadek. The fact is the Levitical Order is but a shadow of the true order. And the true Order supercedes the Levitical one.
In other words - it is greater and better than the Levitical one. It is an Order that has authority not just over Jews, but over the Gentiles, and even to Heaven itself.
That is the message you want to reject.
So Jesus hang around his mother's family? No big deal. I have lots of family as well - some who are Christians and some who are not. I hang around all of them - it does not mean that I am either a Christian or a non-Christian because I hang around with them - and even like them. Surely it is a long stretch to suggest that because Jesus hung around with his levite family that this makes him a levite. Is that what you are putting? That hanging around someone makes you one. Duh.
John did not break a law in baptizing Jesus - but does not it mean that Jesus was ordained a Levite Priest. This is nonsense - and if it was the case - why is that the Pharisees or the other religious leaders in the community never picked up on it? Are you suggesting that rulers and the leaders of the religious church of the time just ignored such an important fact? If you are correct then the Jewish leaders are even dumber than we are led to believe - why would they ask him for his authority if they knew? Why would they accuse him of having no teaching or just being a carpetner from Nazareth? Yes these are questions - you not only cannot answer - but will refuse to answer - I call that running away - just like you did in your own topic when you refused to tell us where the bible says you have to be baptized to baptise someone else. Run away.
For the record - who ordained Aaron?
Created: