Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Posts
This is a matter of axiom choice. The presence of God is like describing the natural order of things. England might not exist, I've never seen it, but when you start talking about it, I don't really have the ground to say, "Proove it; you're the one saying that England exists but you never proove it. I've never seen an England. All I have to go is the word and work of others, but that's hardly proof.
I don't know that I've seen religious texts where a single ideal actually holds regardless of the power of the people with the texts.
--
Dude, there is a fuckton of evidence of England existing.
You can webcam that shit. Can't compare it.
You can also buy stuff from their and read their newspapers. There are also plane flights to the place known as England. On the other hand, I can't order stuff from heaven, and there are no newspapers published in heaven. There aren't any plane tickets I can buy so I can go to heaven for the summer.
By looking at some abstract, subjective "intent" of the Bible, instead of what the Bible actually says, Jesus was actually participating in the nascent rabbinical tradition. In my opinion, he was also flat-out wrong. You can ask "why" all you want but the Bible clearly and unambiguously commands you to stone people to death on the Sabbath.
When it became apparent to Jews that they could not actually follow what the Bible commanded them to do, they split into several groups. One group, the zealots, rebelled against Roman rule and tried to institute a theocratic state of Israel. Other groups went off to the desert and meditated about the nature of God and ritual purity. Other groups became secularized Roman citizens. Other groups became Christians. And a final group, coming from the Pharisees, began "interpreting" the Bible so that the literal meaning of the text became completely unimportant.
Modern Judaism comes from the only group that survived—the last group.
If England was a previously undiscovered place, it would be natural to doubt a claim that it existed and ask for evidence. But it isn't, so it is not comparable to a god, a being which has never been evidentialy demonstrated.
Everyone tells you that England exists, but how can that be proven to you?
They could gather as many people as they can find to tell you that they too know that it exists. But that's not proof. They could show you photographs, but that's not proof. They could hire a plane and fly you there and say "this is england", but even that is not conclusive (you could be in Wales for all you know). They could show you endless books on England, but if this myth of England had been around a long time then it would only be natural that there'd be a long history of non-proof books on the subject and that is still not proof.
They could even pay a few million dollars for you to fly into space, orbit the earth, and have you see a shape of land from high above, but how could you know that was really England?
So they give up on you. They're content to "know" that England exists, and if you don't want to believe it based on their word then whatever.
It would depend on what the word 'England' truly means to you. A tourist would have a different impression of England than someone who lives there. Likewise if you've only experienced it through movies. One could quite easily make the argument that the 'State of England' exists purely in the minds of those who've had some experience of it. Take that away and it's just another rock in the ocean.
The word 'God' is subject to a similar questioning. The 'Experience of God' is different for everyone, yet this difference is only experienced in the mind. The Jewish experience as it relates to it's questions regarding the coming of the Messiah is almost be expected to evolve into something similar to the Christian experience should the Messiah appear.
Classical statistics sucks. There, I said it.
Anyways, that is not how it works. You are deciding whether or not to reject the null hypothesis, not whether or not the null hypothesis is ultimately true. If you don't reject the null that doesn't mean that it is true, or even necessarily likely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Bayesian statistics is more powerful, but it requires that you are up front with your assumptions and it can be a lot more difficult to calculate.
I never said anything about ultimate truth. I simply stated that I have no obligation to accept an unsupported claim.
If Christ was both the Son of God, and God, then we are not putting anyone above God by worshiping Christ, who is God.
And yeah, I do realize how that doesnt make a ton of sense, but neither does the idea of an omnipotent being creating itself, and the entire universe.
Christian feel a link with the Jews that (from this thread) they do not share with Christians?
Qingu of any Mulism care to respond.
I think it was mentioned earlier (by Qingu?) that Islam views Christ as an Official Prophet of some sort, but that nevertheless Christians are wrong for not converting to Islam, which is somewhat like the New New Testament. Or something.
Yes they see Jesus as a prophet the same way Christian see Moses as a prophet. They also believe in the virgin birth. The Christian see the Jewish faith as close (they just missed the fact that Jesus was the Messiah), but we see pagan practices as completely wrong.
I guess I'll Google and try to find out if Muslims believe that their prophet was the Jewish Messiah.
Also, Christians and Jews believe Isaac was the chosen son. Muslims believe the chosen son was Ishmael. We even believe that Abraham lived in different parts of the world (if I am correct). As I said I will look into it on Google, but I would like to hear specific Islamic beliefs from a Muslim.
That being said, I believe the question was posed in regards to Islam and the divinity of Jesus.
As near as I can tell, although Islam looks at Jesus (Isa) as a prophet, they also have scripture pertaining to his return on the Day of Judgement. He's supposed to pray behind the Mahdi, Islam's last teacher, although the Mahdi and Jesus may be the same person.
Islam also has a large amounts of scripture relating to the Daj'jal (literally: The Ignorance), or Islam's version of the Anti-Christ, who's supposed to appear at the same time.
Word?
This has just been added to my long list of "things to research."
As a Christian, I agree with some of those on the list will happen, 30, 32, 36.
I sounds like by 34 I am safe in the eyes of Mulisms. It may not being a huge sin to be a Christian in their eyes.
I can not decide if 24 is a good thing or a bad thing.
Any rabbis out there care to enlighten me?
I've also come across some lines of thinking that seem to imply the Christ and the Anti-Christ are really the same person, although they're up for a great deal of debate.
Even Jesus had his bout with Satan in the desert.
The phrase "Get thee behind me, Satan." as taken from Luke 4:5-8, could have a double meaning there.
Maybe "Get thee behind me" is another way of saying "C'mon dude... back me up here. God's pissed and we've got work to do."
No way Rolly. Read what he says after. Hes not saying, "Back me up" hes saying, "No, stop trying to tempt me, I'm going to stay focused on God"
As I see it. Christians are just another kind of jew.
I mean many protestants say that catholics arent christians, so couldnt it be that christians are actually just jews that want to differentiate themselves from the "mainstream" jews?
After all, jesus was a jew.
See, that's where it gets kind of confusing
Are we to assume that Jesus was actually conversing with the Devil? That there was a person standing there whispering in his ear telling him all these things?
Mohammad put forth the idea that there we are constantly at war within ourselves. There is a good side and an evil side to every person. That there actually exists an 'angel' of sorts sitting on our shoulders advising us on what to do... a sort of divine conscience.
If Jesus was in fact talking to himself in this instance, he's questioning his faith and his resolve. After all... it would be a simple matter to prove for himself his divinity simply by jumping off a cliff. If he survives, he's obviously divine. But in this case, it's shown that choosing not to test God is an even greater test and reaffirmation of faith.
So if Jesus was talking to himself in the desert, having recently suffered a divine revelation at the hands of John the Baptist, then he was telling the doubting portion of his own personality to get in line with his decision to go forwards and preach the word of God.
At least, that's how I like to look at it.
They are the most perfect creations of their time.
They are both referred to as the Morning Star.
They both are out to change how the cosmos function.
Both were either seated at or considered God's Right Hand.
But one suffered for his arrogance, while the other apparently died for our sins.
In the case of Jesus is Lucifier, I would like to offer this up as exhibit A:
"Jesus: Lucifer after spankings."
First he's cast into Hell, then he's crucified.
I'd say he'd be one tough-assed pissed of mo-fo.
Preaching tough love, instead of that hippy bullshit.
Yeah that would be cool. He would have excperienced the two extremes. Id like to see that.
He would probably be like those neutral creatures in Black and white. Helps the villagers with the grain, but misstakes one or two for food sometimes, and gets a little excited and flings a fireball at the nursery ^^
No but seriously, buddha was still good. It was just that he was trying to find the middle way in living life. That is punishment, or hedonism. And he went the middle way.
There was no evil contra good. You were supposed to be good. But there is a line in the texts that tells you to have balance, but you should never be evil.
Siddhārtha Gautama showed up at least 500 years before Christ. So we swing from Satan (Arrogant Evil), to the middle which was Buddha (Perfect Neutral Enlightenment), to Jesus (Passionate and Suffering).
Although there is a link between the Buddhist concept of suffering and desire and what happened to Christ, it looks more like a logical conclusion than an eventual evolution.
I'm thinking more a Biker Jesus instead of a Hippy Jesus.
http://home.dejazzd.com/fritolaid/biker-jesus.jpg
You are welcome.
Edit: Rolly I am begining to question your senses. You are pretty far out there.
While John Paul II was interested in interfaith dialogue, Benedict XVI has apparently renounced this position. In some ways, however, Islam and Catholicism stand together in their opposition to what they see as modern secular relativism, the demise of moral values, etc.
Naaa... I just think Jesus, if he showed up today, would have to appeal to modern youth. Give him a couple scars on his face, riding around on a harley, make him a chain smoker... Just show that he isn't the pussy the bible portrays him as.
Mohammad and his followers ran from persecution for 7 years before they finally took up weapons and fought back. Apparently even the patience of the divine has it's limits.
While having a 'Neo-like' Jesus would be cool and all, the superpowers would detract from his ability to relate to the plight of the modern man. Just make him one mean mo-fo, tough as nails but fair, and unwilling to take shit off anyone.
A proper man's man.
Then He is already here.
/angel choir sound "Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh"
-- (Terry Pratchett, alt.fan.pratchett)
It's like you picked that thought straight out of my brain.
Although Chuck already has been quoted on the subject:
Although I'm a bit confused over that last bit. Sounds like he wants to kick his ass.