6 of 9
6
Is it egotistical to think that a God would die for you?
Posted: 01 July 2013 01:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

Replying to the opening post: Let’s not overlook the layers and layers of assumptions embedded in the narrative. Taken just in the element listed in our topic title, the narrative of Jesus’ willing sojourn to earth and his willing sacrifice of his own life is a beautiful story about how sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of one. Of course the story is egotistical, at many levels: in order to have any positive moral impact, Jesus has to be seen as an example, so the story invites us to project ourselves into the person and character of God. But on the other hand, the narrative invites us to do what is right no matter what the cost may be to ourselves. That’s not the problem with the narrative.

The problem is all the background - the other parts of the story - and the depth of its flaws depends on the particular way in which the story is told. For example, if the story begins with an omnipotent, omniscient and loving god creating the universe and having the power to do anything he decides to do, then of course the story makes no sense, and the “sacrifice” is completely gratuitous. If the purpose of God’s coming to die is to save us from eternal torment in a hell God supposedly created, that’s another crippling problem. If the idea is that we can only be saved if we accept God’s offer of salvation - else our debt of sin remains unpaid, and a “just” God could not have us in heaven under those circumstances - then there’s no accounting for why most of the world never heard the story for many centuries after these miraculous things supposedly happened.

Those are fatal problems with the narrative. But let’s not lose sight of the symbolic message that appeals so strongly to so many people. If you ignore the details, it’s a beautiful story. We need to stop reacting in knee-jerk fashion to this sort of thing, do a better job understanding why its appeal is so powerful, and see the dignity in that response to the story.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 01:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Write4U - 11 June 2013 09:32 PM

I know but if you never die is that not everlasting life? After death can we call that life?  Life after death seems a little conflicting.  Is the soul a life form? If yes, then is god a life form? If it is a life form can it be everlasting and/or eternal? Round n Round we go.

That’s like asking whether a unicorn is a mammal - isn’t it?

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 02:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
PLaClair - 01 July 2013 01:28 PM
Write4U - 11 June 2013 09:32 PM

I know but if you never die is that not everlasting life? After death can we call that life?  Life after death seems a little conflicting.  Is the soul a life form? If yes, then is god a life form? If it is a life form can it be everlasting and/or eternal? Round n Round we go.

That’s like asking whether a unicorn is a mammal - isn’t it?

True to an atheist. But if there ever were unicorns, they are now extinct and obviously not immortal (unless their souls dwell in heaven).

The question is to theist who claim that god is immortal and that after we die we can have a life after death and dwell in the house of god.

My question was about the physics of such a system…. oh oh

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 04:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Hello Cap’t Jack
RE: Post #74

In the last year many history timelines have been changed. Some by over a hundred thousand years. I do not trust any of them at this time. It will take a few years before we have a really good timeline. Which is good, because the different fields of science are becoming more inline with each other now.

This is what I use in my research.

71,000 BC was a human bottleneck and a six year nuclear winter.
This is easy, Mount Toba.

This leaves us with a population of 10,000 breeding humans, or 26,000 humans on earth.

Use this as the datum point. Its ash went around the world and is used as a timeline.

This datum point puts the humans in a small band of land or what the scientist say are islands of populations. As the earths temperature warmed the populations expanded. These islands of man and animals expanded.

The next big point is that India had to be one of the main islands of mankind.
Domesticated animals and selectively farmed grains plus fruits and vegetables came from India.   

Dr. Premendra Priyadarshi,
http://academia.edu/2504657/Of_Mice_and_Men_DNA_Archaeological_and_Linguistic_correlation_of_the_liked_journeys_of_mice_and_men

Of Mice and Men: DNA, Archaeological and Linguistic correlation of the two linked journeys of mice and men.
Abstract:
The domestic mouse and the house rat are two human commensal species which originated in India. The domestication of the two had occurred in India before they migrated out about 15,000 and 20,000 years back respectively. It is generally held that these species migrated with farming related human migrations. The DNA analysis of the mice (Mus musculus) informs us that the domesticus subspecies left India, entered Iran, reached West Asia and from there Southeast Europe. The other sub-species musculus musculus entered Central Asia from India to disperse in the Russian steppe and further west.

So not only did the people in the Indus Valley create cereal grains which can take twenty thousands years of selective farming but there is the data now the house mice and rats that evolved to live off of these grains and the humans discards had also developed in India.

Now look at the data that shows that Indian proto-farmers started migration at 20,000 ybp. And the mice would have left with shipments of grain trade. Europe was coming out of a cold cycle about 14,000 ybp.

I should note, that the chicken came out of India at this time and was used though out
Europe, but no large egg or chicken farms have been found until the Hyksos went to Egypt around 1700 BC. The technology need for hatcheries came much latter in time with the Asians.

Now, Cap’t Jack , once you have made a list of all the fruit, vegetable and animals that came out of India and a time of when they left India along with a list of how long it took the items to be cultivated from the wild to the domestic stage.

Next look at the money system and the language the people used – Asian.

The archaeologist in Egypt uses the seeds of the plants brought by the Hyksos as a timeline in digging. 

I think you will start realizing that the dates on the information you are referring to comes from some PHD’s that got a free vacation to roam around sites in India. They published what was safe and on the surface. The real archaeology has not yet taken place.

Cap’t Jack you bring up a very good subject in the “The Epic of Gilgamesh”, almost every top scholar on the subject agrees that the religions of Ur and Sumer comes from an older religions and beliefs that have not been fully explained why they are not recorded or what changed to make them appear to have the need to built a new religion upon an older ones.

Next you ask about the fruits and nuts. Just follow the DNA.

On the Hyksos in Egypt, there is no evidence that the Hyksos were driven out.  The Hyksos left after two hundred years and Moses did not leave until four hundred years latter. Most agree that the Hyksos left because of leprosy.

What we may find once the digging starts is that Goshen was part of the Asian trade group and will go back thousands of years before the 1700 BC. Question is will they find settlement before the flood?

We may have to change our thinking a little bit. You’re looking for big stone building, like in Egypt and places. Egypt itself did not start building in stone until after the flood.

Not all powers require big stone building, just look at Russia, a hundred year ago, half the population of Europe and very few big stone building.

Sky burial, is still used today, burial can tell us some things about the people. The Canaan People used Sky Burials that was connected to the India methods, where as some American Indians use sky burials that were not connected. It has to do with religion.
As far as being used in Ancient Egypt, we do not yet know. The diggings at Avaris are just starting. From the religious point, Sky Burials allowed your spirit to rise. The Egyptians had doors in the graves so the spirit could rise.

The flood, every civilization that had recording in that time period, including Mexico, South America and if I remember right about thirty civilizations total had recorded a major event that started on May 10th, 2807 BC.  Check out this website.
http://www.lawrencehallofscience.org/gss/uptodate/10acc/index.html

Glad you ask some questions,
Mike

[ Edited: 01 July 2013 04:52 PM by MikeYohe ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 04:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Equal Opportunity Curmudgeon   Post #75

There was no such flood. The deluge is a myth. See http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=475

Bob Riggins does not say there was no flood of the type we are talking about.
He is just saying that the boat with all the animals is a little hard to swallow.
And that the oceans rising 29k feet he is not buying.
Bob was just talking Creationism vs Evolution.

We are all way beyond that point and agree with Bob.
I have found that reading some of the older Noah stories do make sense.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 04:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26

Just saw the remake of the “Clash of the Titans”

One statement struck me.  It is when Hades explains to Zeus (his brother) that “mortal man has a soul and an afterlife, but Gods do not have a soul and once a god is dead, there is nothing left of that god”.

This IMO was a profound statement, which clearly implies that gods are man made and once man does no longer believe in his god, that god dies altogether and irrevocably.

Of course it is a contradictory statement, as man’s soul is only present when there is belief in a god. Thus when that god dies, man’s soul also disappears.

[ Edited: 01 July 2013 04:46 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 05:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

The dictionary has the definition “deicide” 1. a person who kills a god.

You would have to think that at sometime in history somebody was killing gods to have had the reason to come up with a name for it.

You picked a time when all gods had wives and children. The first recording of the Holy Spirit was when the Upper Gods killed a Lower God, I can’t remember his name. But he was the head god in a labor strike, so the Upper Gods killed him, but they burnt his bones so his spirit could rise and he would be remembered.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 05:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
MikeYohe - 01 July 2013 05:03 PM

The dictionary has the definition “deicide” 1. a person who kills a god.

You would have to think that at sometime in history somebody was killing gods to have had the reason to come up with a name for it.

You picked a time when all gods had wives and children. The first recording of the Holy Spirit was when the Upper Gods killed a Lower God, I can’t remember his name. But he was the head god in a labor strike, so the Upper Gods killed him, but they burnt his bones so his spirit could rise and he would be remembered.

Please define “Holy Spirit”, is that a god or is it greater than a god?

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Write4U

I am no expert; this is just what I have picked up while reading.

The “Holy Spirit” is the soul of the God.

In the Gnostic thinking, everyone has a spirit, all the spirits combined make up the “Holy Spirit”.

Gnostic was before Christian thinking.

Christianity started out as Gnostic then change the meanings and went Catholic. 

The Rule of Faith used by Irenaeus (180 CE) and Tertullian (200 - 210) was a summary of the redemptive process as they saw it. “Irenaeus declares that the whole Church believes ‘in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and the seas and all that is therein, and in one Christ Jesus the Son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit who through the prophets preached the dispensations and the comings and the virgin birth and the passion, and the rising from the dead and the assumption into heaven in his flesh of our beloved Lord Jesus Christ, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father…to raise up all flesh.”(66)

In her recently published book, Minna Heimola links a threefold sacramental progression in the Gospel of Philip 61,27–35 with different types or, I would add, degrees of religious experience (Heimola 2011,33–4): “You have seen things there and have become those things, you have seen the Spirit and have become Spirit, you have seen Christ and have become Christ, you have seen the [Father] and will become Father. [Here] in the world you see everything but do not [see] yourself, but there in that realm you see yourself, and you will [become] what you see.” This passage likely fits into a Christian Trinitarian baptismal formula, though it could also, as Heimola indicates, reflect depths of teachings.

Have you ever seen the pictures of Jesus standing in a cloud with a halo, hand outreached looking towards the heavens.
Well my understanding is that the cloud is the Spirit.

So let’s take a look at the thought above.

“You have seen things there and have become those things, you have seen the Spirit and have become Spirit, you have seen Christ and have become Christ, you have seen the [Father] and will become Father. [Here] in the world you see everything but do not [see] yourself, but there in that realm you see yourself, and you will [become] what you see.”


Try and change it to some form of Gnostic.

“You have seen things there and have become those things, you have seen the knowledge and have become knowledge, you have seen the Teacher (son of God) and have become Teacher (son of God), you have seen the God and will become God. In the world you see everything but do not [see] yourself, but there in that realm you see yourself and you will become what you see.

There is a lot of translation missing and the paragraph is not a good one to translate.
One guesses a better translation.

And there is the last sentence that could read;
In the world you learn everything but do not understand yourself, but there in that realm you understand yourself and you will become the knowledge.

Going back to the first Spirit at Ur, they knew back then that everything was made from matter. Now they wanted to explain thought and knowledge. Or what is in your brain. And that knowledge became known as light, and light was known as knowledge.
You can get parts of it in the bible, the “Luminous Cloud”.
Upon burning the bones the smoke that rose was your spirit and your knowledge.

Jesus burial kept the bones in bone boxes to save your spirit.
The Jews did not.

Hope this helps, if it was simple the church could explain it in a form that people could understand.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 07:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26

Mike,

The “Holy Spirit” is the soul of the God.

In the Gnostic thinking, everyone has a spirit, all the spirits combined make up the “Holy Spirit”.

ok,

Bing Dictonary, Definition of holy (adj)

1.consecrated: dedicated or set apart for religious purposes
2.saintly: devoted to the service of God, a god, or a goddess
3.sacred: relating to, belonging to, or coming from a divine being or power

Why is the spirit “holy”?

Let me translate your missive in scientific terms.

Potential is the fundamental property of the Universe.

Everyone (everything) has potential and all the combined potentials make up the Universal Potential.

Divinity is unnecessary. Potential is demonstrably real an unambiguous.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 07:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Very good.
That covers today’s thought of what the Holy Spirit meant to the people back at the beginning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2013 09:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
MikeYohe - 01 July 2013 07:36 PM

Very good.
That covers today’s thought of what the Holy Spirit meant to the people back at the beginning.

Actually it does.  At the beginning the gods were created to identify inherent potentials in observable but unidentifiable phenomena.
God of rain, god of thunder, god of fire, god of the clouds, god of the sea.  Everything associated with the expression these potentials were assigned a name of a god.
IOW, mythology identifies the potentials inherent in the Laws of Nature.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 12:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  483
Joined  2013-06-01

Put to simple Math

Potential Theory of Mankind - Why man has always needed God

P = Answered Questions known by Man
G = Unanswered Questions are known by God
U = Full understanding of all Questions by Man

P = Knowledge
G = God - belief that God knows all

G = U is True
G + P = U is True
P = U is False

G require belief
P requires full understanding with no belief

Result - With God all answers are known

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 12:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5975
Joined  2009-02-26
MikeYohe - 02 July 2013 12:20 AM

Put to simple Math

Potential Theory of Mankind - Why man has always needed God

P = Answered Questions known by Man
G = Unanswered Questions are known by God
U = Full understanding of all Questions by Man

P = Knowledge
G = God - belief that God knows all

G = U is True
G + P = U is True
P = U is False

G require belief
P requires full understanding with no belief

Result - With God all answers are known

That logic sounds soooo wrong to me that I won’t even try to answer that. I’ll leave that to more experienced logical thinkers. Anyone? Please?

One last thought before I close my argument and just observe.

Definition of Potential, “That which may become reality”.  Can God do better?  I’ll leave it at that.

[ Edited: 02 July 2013 01:11 AM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2013 05:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1283
Joined  2011-03-12

That logic sounds soooo wrong to me that I won’t even try to answer that. I’ll leave that to more experienced logical thinkers. Anyone? Please?

It’s 11,574 characters used to say absolutely nothing.

 Signature 

Question authority and think for yourself. Big Brother does not know best and never has.

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 9
6