The Burden of Proof is on the claimant, not on the one who doubts the claim.
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.
That is rather the usual pattern in religious texts. Their statements aren't so much "The Law" as "Look, if we do it this way, we can conquer their asses." vs. "If we do it this way, they won't OBLITERATE our asses."
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.
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.
The Jews were perfectly justified to have Jesus killed, Biblically speaking. He worked on the Sabbath, and he was a blasphemer. Both crimes are punishable by death.
Jesus gave perfectly solid reason as to why working on the Sabbath was okay. The Sabbath was made by God for man to rest. God does not stop the Universe from existing from the Sabbath, he still does his work, he still answers our prayers, he still helps us. Why should we stop helping fellow man on the Sabbath? If our neighbor is sick, or injured on the Sabbath, and comes to us for help, do we sit by and watch him die, and say, "Sorry, you should've been mortally wounded yesterday?"
Jesus was acting like a Talmudic rabbi. He ignored the plain, literal meaning of the Bible. There is absolutely no ambiguity in the laws of Exodus and Deuteronomy—anyone who works on the Sabbath is supposed to be stoned to death.
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.
I have to admit that the idea of a commentary on a religious text having more weight than the religious text itself seems extremely counterintuitive. Certainly, the Talmud has historical and cultural signifigance to Judaism, but I honestly can't see why it would be more important than the actual OT.
It's mostly on practical grounds. The Torah happened to be written (in parts, at least) before people had figured out how to use Iron. Well, the Talmud did too (at least, before Iron came to Europe), but I digress.
By the time the Talmud was going to be codified, the Jews had evolved from being primarily a tribe with a really cool religion (and as such, concerned with dominance over other tribes) to a bona-fide religious group that needed to interact peacefully with it's neighbors (especially ones that had lots of cool and powerful weaponry, like Rome, etc).
They developed an oral tradition to modify laws that were a little too stringent for Jewish life, and created new ones for Jews in situations that the Torah didn't cover (like being somewhere else besides Israel). After all, if it's time for the passover sacrament and you're in Babylon, do you hike all the way to Israel and sacrafice a lamb on the broken altar, or do you... check the Talmud and conduct a decent alternative?
Choice seems pretty simple to me.
I think this is a good way of putting it. I would put it a little stronger.
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.
The Burden of Proof is on the claimant, not on the one who doubts the claim.
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.
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.
The Burden of Proof is on the claimant, not on the one who doubts the claim.
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.
This is an interesting example and warrants exploration.
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.
Sumaleth on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited April 2007
Hey - again - there's another atheism thread. This one's about Judaism and Christianity. Stop posting the "prove it" stuff in this thread unless it directly pertains to the similarities or contrast between Christianity or Judaism. Or else I have to throw cards, and I hate doing that.
The Burden of Proof is on the claimant, not on the one who doubts the claim.
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.
This is an interesting example and warrants exploration.
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.
Honestly, what gets to me, is that you insist people need to prove God, and yet you can't prove a lack of God.
The Burden of Proof is on the claimant, not on the one who doubts the claim. Thus, it is not up to myself and other non-theists to disprove the existance of a god, rather, it is up to those who claim that a god exists to back up their claim with evidence. If they either can't or won't do this, then we non-theists are under no obligation to take their claims seriously. That is all there is to it. If you can't understand that, Evander, then there is something seriously wrong with you.
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.
Honestly, what gets to me, is that you insist people need to prove God, and yet you can't prove a lack of God.
The Burden of Proof is on the claimant, not on the one who doubts the claim. Thus, it is not up to myself and other non-theists to disprove the existance of a god, rather, it is up to those who claim that a god exists to back up their claim with evidence. If they either can't or won't do this, then we non-theists are under no obligation to take their claims seriously. That is all there is to it. If you can't understand that, Evander, then there is something seriously wrong with you.
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.
God tells us not to worship false idols, such as ones we made ourselves. He got rather annoyed when he did awesome things for his people, then they made gold cows to worship.
Well, yeah. This is exactly why Orthodox Jews don't get Christianity - when god says "I am the one and only god, put no others before me, etc.", and you throw in "I love Jesus, who will personally save me from Hell, and there's this cool Holy Ghost guy around too", it seems pretty clear (to them) that someone isn't listening to god.
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
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.
CangoFett on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited April 2007
Okay - three cards to people who just had to keep on with the proving. disproving of God. Like I said before, we have other threads for that.
Qingu what is Islam's stand on Christianity and Judiaism?
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.
Qingu what is Islam's stand on Christianity and Judiaism?
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.
Apparently holding the view that God is a personal creation is a means for generating a proof, so I won't talk about personal Gods anymore.
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.
Apparently holding the view that God is a personal creation is a means for generating a proof, so I won't talk about personal Gods anymore.
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."
The following passage was taking from a muslim message board. The 50 Signs
50 Signs of the Day of Judgment From the Words of Allah and His Messenger (sallallahu `alaihi wa sallam)
The Signs are listed in roughly chronological order, although the order is not necessarily precise, especially for those in the future.
This is a brief summary of the signs; there are many books, articles, cassettes etc. which discuss these in greater detail. May Allah enable us to recognise and heed the Signs, and strengthen us in the times of tribulation.
"Are they waiting for anything except the Hour, to come to them suddenly? But its Signs have already come!" (Al-Qur'ân, Surah Muhammad)
Past
1. Splitting of the Moon.
2. Death of the Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.
3. A form of death which will kill thousands of Muslims. (Understood to refer to the plague of Amwas during the caliphate of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab.)
4. A major fighting in Madinah (understood to refer to the battle of al-Harrah during the caliphate of Yazid, 63 AH).
5. The Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.
6. The Muslim conquest of Constantinople.
7. Two large groups of Muslims will fight in war.
8. A war between the Muslims and a reddish people with small eyes, wearing sandals made of hair (understood to refer to the Mongol Tatar invasion of the Islamic lands.)
9. A peace agreement between the Muslims and non-Muslims from the yellow race (Chinese, Mongols, etc.)
10. Thirty impostors (dajjal) will appear, each thinking he is a prophet.
Present?
11. Naked, destitute, barefoot shepherds will compete in building tall buildings.
12. The slave-woman will give birth to her master or mistress.
13. A trial (fitnah) which will enter every Arab household.
14. Knowledge will be taken away (by the death of people of knowledge), and ignorance will prevail.
15. Wine (intoxicants, alcohol) will be drunk in great quantities.
16. Illegal sexual intercourse will become widespread.
17. Earthquakes will increase.
18. Time will pass more quickly.
19. Tribulations (fitan) will prevail.
20. Bloodshed will increase.
21. A man will pass by the grave of another and wish he was in the latter’s place.
22. Trustworthiness will be lost, i.e. when authority is given to those who do not deserve it.
23. People will gather for prayer, but will be unable to find an imam to lead them.
Future
24. The number of men will decrease, whilst the number of women will increase, until for every man there are 50 women.
25. The Euphrates will reveal a treasure of gold, and many will die fighting over it, each one hoping to be the one who gains the treasure.
26. The Romans (Europeans) will come to a place called A’maq or Wabiq, and an army of the best people will go forth from Madinah to face them.
27. The Muslim conquest of Rome.
28. The Mahdi (guided one) will appear, and be the Imam of the Muslims.
29. Jesus Christ will descend in Damascus, and pray behind the Mahdi.
30. Jesus will break the cross and kill the swine, i.e. destroy the false christianity.
31. The Antichrist (al-masih al-dajjal, the false christ) will appear, with all his tools of deception, and be an immense trial. He will be followed by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan (present-day Iran).
32. The appearance of Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog), and the associated tribulations.
33. The emergence of the Beast from the Earth, carrying the Staff of Moses and the Seal of Solomon, who will speak to the people, telling them they did not believe with certainty in the Divine Signs.
34. A major war between the Muslims (including Jews and Christians who truly believe in Jesus after his return) led by the Imam Mahdi, and the Jews plus other non-Muslims led by the Antichrist.
35. Jesus will kill the Antichrist at the gate of Ludd (Lod in present-day Israel, site of an airport and a major Israeli military base).
36. A time of great peace and serenity during and after the remaining lifetime of Jesus.
37. Wealth will come so abundant that it will become difficult to find someone to accept charity.
38. Arabia will become a land of gardens and rivers.
39. Society will then decay.
40. The buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daws will again sway in circumambulation (tawaf) around the idol Dhul-Khulsah.
41. A great fire in the Hijaz, seen by the inhabitants of Busra.
42. Three major armies will sink into the earth: one in the east, one in the west, one in Arabia.
43. An Abyssinian leader with thin shins will destroy the Ka’bah.
44. The huge cloud of smoke.
45. The sun will rise from the west (its place of setting).
46. A gentle wind which will take the souls of the believers.
47. There is no-one left on the earth saying, "Allah, Allah" or "There is no god except Allah."
48. Eventually the Day of Judgment is established upon the worst of the people, who copulate like donkeys in public.
49. The blowing in the Trumpet by the Angel Israfil, upon which everyone will faint except as Allah wills.
50. The second blowing in the Trumpet, upon which everyone will be resurrected.
The following passage was taking from a muslim message board. The 50 Signs
50 Signs of the Day of Judgment From the Words of Allah and His Messenger (sallallahu `alaihi wa sallam)
The Signs are listed in roughly chronological order, although the order is not necessarily precise, especially for those in the future.
This is a brief summary of the signs; there are many books, articles, cassettes etc. which discuss these in greater detail. May Allah enable us to recognise and heed the Signs, and strengthen us in the times of tribulation.
"Are they waiting for anything except the Hour, to come to them suddenly? But its Signs have already come!" (Al-Qur'ân, Surah Muhammad)
Past
1. Splitting of the Moon.
2. Death of the Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.
3. A form of death which will kill thousands of Muslims. (Understood to refer to the plague of Amwas during the caliphate of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab.)
4. A major fighting in Madinah (understood to refer to the battle of al-Harrah during the caliphate of Yazid, 63 AH).
5. The Muslim conquest of Jerusalem.
6. The Muslim conquest of Constantinople.
7. Two large groups of Muslims will fight in war.
8. A war between the Muslims and a reddish people with small eyes, wearing sandals made of hair (understood to refer to the Mongol Tatar invasion of the Islamic lands.)
9. A peace agreement between the Muslims and non-Muslims from the yellow race (Chinese, Mongols, etc.)
10. Thirty impostors (dajjal) will appear, each thinking he is a prophet.
Present?
11. Naked, destitute, barefoot shepherds will compete in building tall buildings.
12. The slave-woman will give birth to her master or mistress.
13. A trial (fitnah) which will enter every Arab household.
14. Knowledge will be taken away (by the death of people of knowledge), and ignorance will prevail.
15. Wine (intoxicants, alcohol) will be drunk in great quantities.
16. Illegal sexual intercourse will become widespread.
17. Earthquakes will increase.
18. Time will pass more quickly.
19. Tribulations (fitan) will prevail.
20. Bloodshed will increase.
21. A man will pass by the grave of another and wish he was in the latter’s place.
22. Trustworthiness will be lost, i.e. when authority is given to those who do not deserve it.
23. People will gather for prayer, but will be unable to find an imam to lead them.
Future
24. The number of men will decrease, whilst the number of women will increase, until for every man there are 50 women.
25. The Euphrates will reveal a treasure of gold, and many will die fighting over it, each one hoping to be the one who gains the treasure.
26. The Romans (Europeans) will come to a place called A’maq or Wabiq, and an army of the best people will go forth from Madinah to face them.
27. The Muslim conquest of Rome.
28. The Mahdi (guided one) will appear, and be the Imam of the Muslims.
29. Jesus Christ will descend in Damascus, and pray behind the Mahdi.
30. Jesus will break the cross and kill the swine, i.e. destroy the false christianity.
31. The Antichrist (al-masih al-dajjal, the false christ) will appear, with all his tools of deception, and be an immense trial. He will be followed by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan (present-day Iran).
32. The appearance of Ya’juj and Ma’juj (Gog and Magog), and the associated tribulations.
33. The emergence of the Beast from the Earth, carrying the Staff of Moses and the Seal of Solomon, who will speak to the people, telling them they did not believe with certainty in the Divine Signs.
34. A major war between the Muslims (including Jews and Christians who truly believe in Jesus after his return) led by the Imam Mahdi, and the Jews plus other non-Muslims led by the Antichrist.
35. Jesus will kill the Antichrist at the gate of Ludd (Lod in present-day Israel, site of an airport and a major Israeli military base).
36. A time of great peace and serenity during and after the remaining lifetime of Jesus.
37. Wealth will come so abundant that it will become difficult to find someone to accept charity.
38. Arabia will become a land of gardens and rivers.
39. Society will then decay.
40. The buttocks of the women of the tribe of Daws will again sway in circumambulation (tawaf) around the idol Dhul-Khulsah.
41. A great fire in the Hijaz, seen by the inhabitants of Busra.
42. Three major armies will sink into the earth: one in the east, one in the west, one in Arabia.
43. An Abyssinian leader with thin shins will destroy the Ka’bah.
44. The huge cloud of smoke.
45. The sun will rise from the west (its place of setting).
46. A gentle wind which will take the souls of the believers.
47. There is no-one left on the earth saying, "Allah, Allah" or "There is no god except Allah."
48. Eventually the Day of Judgment is established upon the worst of the people, who copulate like donkeys in public.
49. The blowing in the Trumpet by the Angel Israfil, upon which everyone will faint except as Allah wills.
50. The second blowing in the Trumpet, upon which everyone will be resurrected.
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.
I meant that last post to just serve as an example for how Islam is looked at to be continuation of the teachings of Judaism and Christianity. As you can see, 'the christ' is an important figure to Islam as well. All three faiths put great stock in the concept of a Divine Saviour, who fills the world with God's Justice and eliminates inequalities. I don't know if Judaism has a concept of an 'anti-Messiah' in their texts though.
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."
3And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
4And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
5And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
6And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
7If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
8And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
9And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
10For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
11And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
12And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
13And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.
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"
To the Practicing Christian: How strong of a link do you see between the Judaism and Christianity? Should modern Christian follow the Law of Moses more closely than we currently do today?
To everyone: Discuss the differences in the denominations and please add any personal stories or events that Wikipedia has left out.
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?
3And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
4And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
5And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.
6And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
7If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
8And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
9And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
10For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
11And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
12And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
13And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season.
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"
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.
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.
Hmmm... Seeing how Buddha came before Jesus, I don't see how that'll work.
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.
Vatican II served to bridge some of the divide between Judaism and the Catholic Church. The Church's history of antisemitism was acknowledged, and the common scriptural heritage recognized. There was a faint possibility of Jewish salvation. The same connections were not made to Islam. Any religion that postdates and rejects the divinity of Christ is technically heretical. The best Muslims got was a recognition of their essential humanity.
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.
Thanks for the links at the beginning of the topic. I didn't know anything about these variants. :P
You are welcome.
Edit: Rolly I am begining to question your senses. You are pretty far out there.
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.
Thanks for the links at the beginning of the topic. I didn't know anything about these variants. :P
You are welcome.
Edit: Rolly I am begining to question your senses. You are pretty far out there.
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.
"Over the centuries, mankind has tried many ways of combating the forces of evil...prayer, fasting, good works and so on. Up until Doom, no one seemed to have thought about the double-barrel shotgun. Eat leaden death, demon..."
Although Chuck already has been quoted on the subject:
Alleged Chuck Norris Fact:"Chuck Norris' tears can cure cancer. Too bad he never cries. Ever."
There was a man whose tears could cure cancer or any other disease, including the real cause of all diseases – sin. His blood did. His name was Jesus, not Chuck Norris.
If your soul needs healing, the prescription you need is not Chuck Norris' tears, it's Jesus' blood.
Although I'm a bit confused over that last bit. Sounds like he wants to kick his ass.
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.