|
I never said I wouldn't tell you. I was just interested why you wanted to know what God says when you tell me you don't believe He exists and He's just something we make up. A being who is cruel and unfair and causes suffering and is not worth the time of day.Why do you wish to know? I didn't think it mattered to you?If I don't know, you aren't going to tell me? Classic.
It never hurts to learn, even if you disbelieve the information given you. However, people understand better when information on the subject can be elaborated upon to understand the nuances. You, for the most part, do not share such information.
So now you're free to tear me apart.
???
|
I never said I wouldn't tell you. I was just interested why you wanted to know what God says when you tell me you don't believe He exists and He's just something we make up. A being who is cruel and unfair and causes suffering and is not worth the time of day.Why do you wish to know? I didn't think it mattered to you?If I don't know, you aren't going to tell me? Classic.It never hurts to learn, even if you disbelieve the information given you. However, people understand better when information on the subject can be elaborated upon to understand the nuances. You, for the most part, do not share such information.
I'm not entirely with you here. What won't I share? I agree it never hurts to learn and if you followed what else I wrote I gave him an answer. I promise anyone here if I can answer something I will, but we often get into areas where explanations become so difficult they almost seem trite when you write them, and I've unintentionally pissed of a lot of people here already. Sometimes we just don't know the answers. I am honest enough to tell you because I DO respect all of you who have talked to me on this thread. But I seem to make enemies left right and centre. I guess I have -30 ranks in Diplomacy ;)
So now you're free to tear me apart.
???
Just being silly. Guess I'm a bit bruised and tired from yesterday. A lot of other stuff happened apart from forums and I wasn't my best.
|
|
That still explain why you think that just what you think. There is a difference between why (the reason you think something) and what (that which you think). I asked why, you mask a simple question in a mysti-systematic dodge. :(Sadly what I just wrote came to me out of the blue, and it was not supposed to be a dodge or whatever else. I respect your intelligence more than that. But I do know that Christ says He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. When Moses(or was it Abram?) talked to God he simply said I AM who I AM. So I guess eternity is a place where things never change and God states throughout the bible that He doesn't change but we do.
A classic tautology: I am what I am. It's at the core of cyclical logic. It also tells you absolutely nothing about God. I am who I am regardless of how much I change, because in present terms I am always me at this exact moment. That doesn't mean that will remain a constant, that tautology is in the moment.
|
|
Funnily enough, when you point out that the length of a day was defined in genesis, they rarely have a response."Funnily" -- that's awesome. I'm going to start using that.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
That seems pretty explicit to me...the rest of the stuff is, in my mind, more contradiction and apologetics.
I like the word funnily too, and it's even a real word:
funnily
Main Entry: 1fun·ny
Pronunciation: \ˈfə-nē\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): fun·ni·er; fun·ni·est
Date: 17561 a : affording light mirth and laughter : amusing b : seeking or intended to amuse : facetious
2 : differing from the ordinary in a suspicious, perplexing, quaint, or eccentric way : peculiar —often used as a sentence modifier <funny, things didn't turn out the way we planned>
3 : involving trickery or deception <told his prisoner not to try anything funny>— fun·ni·ly \ˈfə-nə-lē\ adverb
— fun·ni·ness \ˈfə-nē-nəs\ noun
— funny adverb
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
A classic tautology: I am what I am. It's at the core of cyclical logic. It also tells you absolutely nothing about God. I am who I am regardless of how much I change, because in present terms I am always me at this exact moment. That doesn't mean that will remain a constant, that tautology is in the moment.
That still explain why you think that just what you think. There is a difference between why (the reason you think something) and what (that which you think). I asked why, you mask a simple question in a mysti-systematic dodge. :(Sadly what I just wrote came to me out of the blue, and it was not supposed to be a dodge or whatever else. I respect your intelligence more than that. But I do know that Christ says He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. When Moses(or was it Abram?) talked to God he simply said I AM who I AM. So I guess eternity is a place where things never change and God states throughout the bible that He doesn't change but we do.
Also, Popeye said it first.
|
|
A classic tautology: I am what I am. It's at the core of cyclical logic. It also tells you absolutely nothing about God. I am who I am regardless of how much I change, because in present terms I am always me at this exact moment. That doesn't mean that will remain a constant, that tautology is in the moment.
That still explain why you think that just what you think. There is a difference between why (the reason you think something) and what (that which you think). I asked why, you mask a simple question in a mysti-systematic dodge. :(Sadly what I just wrote came to me out of the blue, and it was not supposed to be a dodge or whatever else. I respect your intelligence more than that. But I do know that Christ says He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. When Moses(or was it Abram?) talked to God he simply said I AM who I AM. So I guess eternity is a place where things never change and God states throughout the bible that He doesn't change but we do.
Yet it is a truthful paradox when it comes to faith. But perhaps the cyclical logic we are talking about here is because we trapped inside it and unable to get off. Kind of like dad standing in the same place on the Carousel watching your child go round and round.
I know I mentioned Quantum Mechanics a while back and I don't know how familiar you are with it, but there is another conundrum that John Gribben makes in his book "In Search of Shroedinger's Cat" where he mentions that the position from where we observe things may not be helpful to making calculations about it. Maybe light doesn't move and is static but we see it move because from our position of observation and locked within the framework of time space we see things only through a slit, and in the universe our position is moving though we still feeling (being caught in time)that we are stationary when in fact we are not. But it's not easy to get your noodle around because it gets a little weird.
|
|
I'm not entirely with you here. What won't I share?
It's in regards to other discussions we've had as well, where I ask you what kinds of specific experiences you've had that helped you come to the conclusions you have about God.
Just being silly. Guess I'm a bit bruised and tired from yesterday. A lot of other stuff happened apart from forums and I wasn't my best.
I'm sorry to hear that. We all have our rough days, we just have to remember to do what is good for one another.
Just want to throw this last bit out too since I saw it:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
|
|
Also, Popeye said it first.A classic tautology: I am what I am. It's at the core of cyclical logic. It also tells you absolutely nothing about God. I am who I am regardless of how much I change, because in present terms I am always me at this exact moment. That doesn't mean that will remain a constant, that tautology is in the moment.
That still explain why you think that just what you think. There is a difference between why (the reason you think something) and what (that which you think). I asked why, you mask a simple question in a mysti-systematic dodge. :(Sadly what I just wrote came to me out of the blue, and it was not supposed to be a dodge or whatever else. I respect your intelligence more than that. But I do know that Christ says He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. When Moses(or was it Abram?) talked to God he simply said I AM who I AM. So I guess eternity is a place where things never change and God states throughout the bible that He doesn't change but we do.
Actually I thought Popeye said "I YAM whats I YAM" ;)
|
|
A classic tautology: I am what I am. It's at the core of cyclical logic. It also tells you absolutely nothing about God. I am who I am regardless of how much I change, because in present terms I am always me at this exact moment. That doesn't mean that will remain a constant, that tautology is in the moment.
That still explain why you think that just what you think. There is a difference between why (the reason you think something) and what (that which you think). I asked why, you mask a simple question in a mysti-systematic dodge. :(Sadly what I just wrote came to me out of the blue, and it was not supposed to be a dodge or whatever else. I respect your intelligence more than that. But I do know that Christ says He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. When Moses(or was it Abram?) talked to God he simply said I AM who I AM. So I guess eternity is a place where things never change and God states throughout the bible that He doesn't change but we do.
Yet it is a truthful paradox when it comes to faith. But perhaps the cyclical logic we are talking about here is because we trapped inside it and unable to get off. Kind of like dad standing in the same place on the Carousel watching your child go round and round.
I know I mentioned Quantum Mechanics a while back and I don't know how familiar you are with it, but there is another conundrum that John Gribben makes in his book "In Search of Shroedinger's Cat" where he mentions that the position from where we observe things may not be helpful to making calculations about it. Maybe light doesn't move and is static but we see it move because from our position of observation and locked within the framework of time space we see things only through a slit, and in the universe our position is moving though we still feeling (being caught in time)that we are stationary when in fact we are not. But it's not easy to get your noodle around because...
Ah, like the geo centric model of the universe...
Edit: Stupid quote wrapping!
|
|
I'm not entirely with you here. What won't I share?It's in regards to other discussions we've had as well, where I ask you what kinds of specific experiences you've had that helped you come to the conclusions you have about God.
I remember. They are personal and I'm not particularly comfortable about posting them on an Internet forum. This is not because I'm afraid that people will trash them either. It's just that there are a lot of specific things I can tell you and I will do it if you email my website through my Profile. For some reason I don't think it should be written here.
Just being silly. Guess I'm a bit bruised and tired from yesterday. A lot of other stuff happened apart from forums and I wasn't my best.
I'm sorry to hear that. We all have our rough days, we just have to remember to do what is good for one another.
Just want to throw this last bit out too since I saw it:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
Thanks for that. Kind of why I love Marcus Aurelius(not me or my avatar)
the real one. I just wish I was even an iota of the man he was.
|
Funnily enough, when you point out that the length of a day was defined in genesis, they rarely have a response."Funnily" -- that's awesome. I'm going to start using that.
That seems pretty explicit to me...the rest of the stuff is, in my mind, more contradiction and apologetics.1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Did you even read the article? It talks more about difficulties and issues with translation than about "apologetics". I guess that you will read into it what you will. What gets me is that you ask for a response and when you get one, you dismiss it. Seems like you are little better than the Christians you have a problem with.
I personally disagree about the snake, but the Lucifer name comes from this text:
Lucifer is sometimes, instead of being transcribed as a name, directly translated: Morning Star. Depends on your version of the text.
Looking at the context of Isaiah 14, however, the discussion isn't about the devil - it's about King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Jump back to verse 4, where the long quote begins that includes verse 12 (quoted above):
Actually, it was in reference to the King of Tyre. Blame Eusebius of Caesarea for taking an adjective and making it a proper noun. Then blame the exegetes and imaginative apocryphal writers for putting 'em together.
Why can't an anthropomorphic snake just be a talking snake? Heck, Balaam had a talking ass. ;) HEE-HAW!
What is the actual rebellion that he's done? Aside from the apocrypha... It is my understanding that he continues his adversarial role from Job in the Gospels. From my understanding of the reading i've done, he has no free will and does his job diligently (until revelation that is).Or if you hold a slanted view of predestination and the omniscient of God, technically he's doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing in the context of Revelation. Essentially, he's the scapegoat being sent to Azazel.Right.
What is everyone's take on predestination, then? Whose church utilizes it?
Yes and No.
Some things are predestined, while most everything else is not. I am not sure I can explain my thoughts on this eloquently or properly.
I don't think it's both. It's one or the other, personally. I think one problem is that certain people don't even allow for a deity to change or evolve. But if we read the Bible from a generational to generational point of view - anthropomorphic or not -- sociologically or not -- God does.
Personally, I have an interesting theory that dubbing Yahweh as 'I Am' is erroneous on several levels. And too static.
|
|
I remember. They are personal and I'm not particularly comfortable about posting them on an Internet forum. This is not because I'm afraid that people will trash them either. It's just that there are a lot of specific things I can tell you and I will do it if you email my website through my Profile. For some reason I don't think it should be written here.
That's fine, but is everything so personal? There is absolutely nothing you can share? You show so much dedication to your beliefs, but we have no idea how or why you're that way. This is what I find frustrating, and it's not just you. I question by nature, which I geuss makes people hesitant to reveal things to me.
I don't think Court Fool would accept that, however. He seems to wear his heart on his collar. :P
Thanks for that. Kind of why I love Marcus Aurelius(not me or my avatar)
the real one. I just wish I was even an iota of the man he was.
This is why I like Humanism. It's about living well. You do something not for credit in heaven, fear of god, but for love of your neighbor. Irony is, Jesus says the same thing. It's amazing that secular philosophy and religion can come to the same conclusion.
Actually, it was in reference to the King of Tyre.
Where're you getting that? The entire section is connected to that comment about Nebuchadnezzar... nowhere in Isaiah 14 does it jump over to talking about Tyre. (There's one reference to the "trees of Lebanon", which is where Tyre was located, but it's talking about the trees themselves saying "we're better than you" to the king of Babylon.)
Why can't an anthropomorphic snake just be a talking snake? Heck, Balaam had a talking ass. ;) HEE-HAW!
Mostly because he's referred to in other places as being Satan. "That dragon, the serpent of old, called The Devil and Satan", etc.
If he's omniscient, then he has to know what he's going to be doing in one year (therefore he cannot be omnipotent because he has no power to stop himself from doing that action).Another difficult paradox created when trying to outdue all the other gods.
Just so that everyone knows, I'll be running the European Union in 2012. Vote for me. One Nation under Urizen. And free whores and booze.
It isn't for any of you to understand. And these are not the droids you're looking for. ;P
|
|
If he's omniscient, then he has to know what he's going to be doing in one year (therefore he cannot be omnipotent because he has no power to stop himself from doing that action).Another difficult paradox created when trying to outdue all the other gods.Just so that everyone knows, I'll be running the European Union in 2012. Vote for me. One Nation under Urizen. And free whores and booze.
It isn't for any of you to understand. And these are not the droids you're looking for. ;P
It is your predestiny! [/palpatine]
But still, why assume gray?I don't think we have answers "black and white".I don't think that either stance is accurate and (assuming you believe) the truth is somewhere in the middle.Why make this assumption? If you've got answers black and white, why assume gray?
It is the Grays. It has always been the Grays. Roswell. 1947.
;p
|
|
But still, why assume gray?I don't think we have answers "black and white".I don't think that either stance is accurate and (assuming you believe) the truth is somewhere in the middle.Why make this assumption? If you've got answers black and white, why assume gray?It is the Grays. It has always been the Grays. Roswell. 1947.
;p
You're in rare form today. Good day?
A classic tautology: I am what I am. It's at the core of cyclical logic. It also tells you absolutely nothing about God. I am who I am regardless of how much I change, because in present terms I am always me at this exact moment. That doesn't mean that will remain a constant, that tautology is in the moment.
That still explain why you think that just what you think. There is a difference between why (the reason you think something) and what (that which you think). I asked why, you mask a simple question in a mysti-systematic dodge. :(Sadly what I just wrote came to me out of the blue, and it was not supposed to be a dodge or whatever else. I respect your intelligence more than that. But I do know that Christ says He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. When Moses(or was it Abram?) talked to God he simply said I AM who I AM. So I guess eternity is a place where things never change and God states throughout the bible that He doesn't change but we do.
I'm of the camp that the I AM WHAT I AM tautology is incorrect. It keeps the concept of God as a static being confined by these words we fail to describe said concept. And thus stuck in this cyclical rut and predestination rattraps.
|
|
That's fine, but is everything so personal? There is absolutely nothing you can share? You show so much dedication to your beliefs, but we have no idea how or why you're that way. This is what I find frustrating, and it's not just you. I question by nature, which I geuss makes people hesitant to reveal things to me.
Not true. I respect your curiosity and questioning nature. It's kind of where I come from. I am not a humanist but I respect that living well is crucial. I will share with you that God spoke very directly to me and showed me things that helped me get through a lot of trouble. I will tell you that I was not a particularly good or nice person once upon a time . I also could not accept that God could love one such as me.
One night He took me bodily and allowed me to fall into the pit (utter despair) I would gladly have committed suicide. I cried out to Him though I no longer had the capacity to believe He would listen. Then I felt arms (physical arms) placed under my own arms and bodily lifted out of the pit to a place so beautiful and so much peace that I did not want to ever leave it. Then I was brought back to the cold night in tears of joy and sad I could not remain where I was.
In prayer Jesus told me that now I have been where He had been, and that just as He raised Himself from the Pit there was no-one He couldn't lose and no-one He wouldn't love or raise from death. I was born again in Spirit (I don't much like the term born again because a lot of today's Christians use it as a badge and I'm unsure how many of them fully realize the true significance of it.
Now I could not not believe were I even to want to. I have given you that part of it because you persisted, and I think it was right I did.
I don't think Court Fool would accept that, however. He seems to wear his heart on his collar. :P
He appears very honest though.
Thanks for that. Kind of why I love Marcus Aurelius(not me or my avatar)
the real one. I just wish I was even an iota of the man he was.
This is why I like Humanism. It's about living well. You do something not for credit in heaven, fear of god, but for love of your neighbor. Irony is, Jesus says the same thing. It's amazing that secular philosophy and religion can come to the same conclusion.
Its very strange but very true and you have said exactly what I would say as a Christian. I do not do good to win brownie points, I do it as I would do for anyone I loved.
Actually, it was in reference to the King of Tyre.Where're you getting that? The entire section is connected to that comment about Nebuchadnezzar... nowhere in Isaiah 14 does it jump over to talking about Tyre. (There's one reference to the "trees of Lebanon", which is where Tyre was located, but it's talking about the trees themselves saying "we're better than you" to the king of Babylon.)
Why can't an anthropomorphic snake just be a talking snake? Heck, Balaam had a talking ass. ;) HEE-HAW!Mostly because he's referred to in other places as being Satan. "That dragon, the serpent of old, called The Devil and Satan", etc.
Just because the writer of Revelation ... the last book in the New Testament ... thanks to the likes of Athanasius and the Cappadocian Fathers ... decides to take his own exegetical spin on things by linking one thing to another entity does not necessarily make it so. The snake predated the concept of adversary. As for the Dragon ... that hinges on Persian influences into Judaism during the Diaspora.
Even Satan as a personified entity is erroneous. Calling someone a Satan is simply labeling them as an accuser; the ha-satan. It's a title.
The casting out of Heaven bit didn't come until 2nd Enoch when you had a Watcher named Satanael, which is essentially translated to the accuser of God. Just because there's a Satan in 2nd Enoch and a Satan in Job, it doesn't necessarily mean the one and the same. I'm sure you recall Jesus calling Peter a Satan. Does that mean he's THE SATAN? Or was Jesus just calling him an epithet using it as a descriptive adjective?
A lot of the psuedoepigraphical / apocryphal text came out around or after the period of the Diaspora and again was heavily influences by the influx of Persian Zoroastrianism.
You're in rare form today. Good day?But still, why assume gray?I don't think we have answers "black and white".I don't think that either stance is accurate and (assuming you believe) the truth is somewhere in the middle.Why make this assumption? If you've got answers black and white, why assume gray?It is the Grays. It has always been the Grays. Roswell. 1947.
;p
Oops. I do speaketh too much. I should return to my vow of silence?
|
|
Oops. I do speaketh too much. I should return to my vow of silence?You're in rare form today. Good day?But still, why assume gray?I don't think we have answers "black and white".I don't think that either stance is accurate and (assuming you believe) the truth is somewhere in the middle.Why make this assumption? If you've got answers black and white, why assume gray?It is the Grays. It has always been the Grays. Roswell. 1947.
;p
Not at all.
@ Urizen:
The tautology of I AM WHAT I AM isn't incorrect, by definition of tautology. :P It is, however, chronological by necessity. It doesn't need to imply staticisity, though I geuss it will to some.:\
I err. Tautology correct. Translation incorrect. Those lacking vowels can be quite confusing. Curious to hear my theory?
|
What is the actual rebellion that he's done? Aside from the apocrypha... It is my understanding that he continues his adversarial role from Job in the Gospels. From my understanding of the reading i've done, he has no free will and does his job diligently (until revelation that is).Or if you hold a slanted view of predestination and the omniscient of God, technically he's doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing in the context of Revelation. Essentially, he's the scapegoat being sent to Azazel.Right.
What is everyone's take on predestination, then? Whose church utilizes it?
Yes and No.
Some things are predestined, while most everything else is not. I am not sure I can explain my thoughts on this eloquently or properly.
I don't think it's both. It's one or the other, personally. I think one problem is that certain people don't even allow for a deity to change or evolve. But if we read the Bible from a generational to generational point of view - anthropomorphic or not -- sociologically or not -- God does.
Personally, I have an interesting theory that dubbing Yahweh as 'I Am' is erroneous on several levels. And too static.
Could you please explain what you mean here.
I have always felt, and this is only my opinion, that it is we who change and as such our understanding our perception of what was "written" is being "written" has evolved.
Also going back to the book analogy, although it isn't as has been pointed out twice, a great analogy, each time the author adds some plot point{or the grand GM as Studpuffin says} we learn a little more about the story.
|
|
I err. Tautology correct. Translation incorrect. Those lacking vowels can be quite confusing. Curious to hear my theory?@ Urizen:
The tautology of I AM WHAT I AM isn't incorrect, by definition of tautology. :P It is, however, chronological by necessity. It doesn't need to imply staticisity, though I geuss it will to some.:\
LOL, quite!
I'm sure you recall Jesus calling Peter a Satan. Does that mean he's THE SATAN? Or was Jesus just calling him an epithet using it as a descriptive adjective?
I've always heard it explained as yes, he was actually calling him Satan... as in "You're doubting me, that's sinful, stop doing it" or "stop acting like the Devil and trying to talk me out of what I'm supposed to do". Sort of a "shock him back into his senses" maneuver.
This is honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone claim Satan as it's used in the Bible as not referring to an actual singular entity.
I'm sure you recall Jesus calling Peter a Satan. Does that mean he's THE SATAN? Or was Jesus just calling him an epithet using it as a descriptive adjective?I've always heard it explained as yes, he was actually calling him Satan... as in "You're doubting me, that's sinful, stop doing it" or "stop acting like the Devil and trying to talk me out of what I'm supposed to do". Sort of a "shock him back into his senses" maneuver.
This is honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone claim Satan as it's used in the Bible as not referring to an actual singular entity.
The ha-satan, in its original origin, was definitely not a singular entity.
From my perspective, Jesus was calling Peter an accuser. Or in other words, he was being adversarial to what he was trying to explain / teach. Peter wasn't exactly the brightest bulb in the bunch.
And don't get me started on the Roman Catholics placing him in Rome to become the first Pope. Grr....
|
|
I'm sure you recall Jesus calling Peter a Satan. Does that mean he's THE SATAN? Or was Jesus just calling him an epithet using it as a descriptive adjective?I've always heard it explained as yes, he was actually calling him Satan... as in "You're doubting me, that's sinful, stop doing it" or "stop acting like the Devil and trying to talk me out of what I'm supposed to do". Sort of a "shock him back into his senses" maneuver.
This is honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone claim Satan as it's used in the Bible as not referring to an actual singular entity.
Actually Satan was giving the idea to Peter who said it to Jesus. It was not Peter Jesus was referring to. He just recognized that Satan was behind it. Remember that Jesus was a man and was tempted like a man just as any of us are.
Actually Satan was giving the idea to Peter who said it to Jesus. It was not Peter Jesus was referring to. He just recognized that Satan was behind it. Remember that Jesus was a man and was tempted like a man just as any of us are.I'm sure you recall Jesus calling Peter a Satan. Does that mean he's THE SATAN? Or was Jesus just calling him an epithet using it as a descriptive adjective?I've always heard it explained as yes, he was actually calling him Satan... as in "You're doubting me, that's sinful, stop doing it" or "stop acting like the Devil and trying to talk me out of what I'm supposed to do". Sort of a "shock him back into his senses" maneuver.
This is honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone claim Satan as it's used in the Bible as not referring to an actual singular entity.
Placing the blame is bad exegesis and too neat from a literal point of view by applying it to an influencing daemon. Jesus simply called Peter out.
I have not read any of this thread, but I'm gonna throw in an anecdote, take it or leave it....
At a swim meet this evening. Thunder kept delaying things.
As we are packing to leave some little kid (4ish) walks up and starts talking to me.
He says something about the big thunder and I say "yeah..."
He says: "Thunder is magic. God makes it."
I looked at him and said: "Yeah that's right."
And, speaking as both an engineer and an atheist, I meant it.
LOL, quite!I err. Tautology correct. Translation incorrect. Those lacking vowels can be quite confusing. Curious to hear my theory?@ Urizen:
The tautology of I AM WHAT I AM isn't incorrect, by definition of tautology. :P It is, however, chronological by necessity. It doesn't need to imply staticisity, though I geuss it will to some.:\
I don't have the literal Hebrew in front of me, so I'm going straight from memory. I'm going to assume that some of us are aware that Hebrew - in that form - did not contain vowels; only consonants. Which explains the whole Jehovah vs Yahweh mix-up.
I AM THAT I AM is the common interpretation. My proposal:
I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE or I WILL BECOME WHAT I WILL BECOME.
It removes 'God' from the static unchanging omnipresent being that we've always succumbed to anthropomorphism ... and allows 'God' to become a dynamic ... changing ... verb.
For some people, this could cause a paradigm shift in thought. I have more to go on with this, but I'll leave it here for now.
For the record, I am a social atheist. I'm also a philosophical agnostic. But I have a passion for crazy zen wisdom. ;)
He says something about the big thunder and I say "yeah..."
He says: "Thunder is magic. God makes it."I looked at him and said: "Yeah that's right."
And, speaking as both an engineer and an atheist, I meant it.
You get a +1 from me on that. Nice!
|
|
I'm sure you recall Jesus calling Peter a Satan. Does that mean he's THE SATAN? Or was Jesus just calling him an epithet using it as a descriptive adjective?I've always heard it explained as yes, he was actually calling him Satan... as in "You're doubting me, that's sinful, stop doing it" or "stop acting like the Devil and trying to talk me out of what I'm supposed to do". Sort of a "shock him back into his senses" maneuver.
This is honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone claim Satan as it's used in the Bible as not referring to an actual singular entity.
The ha-satan, in its original origin, was definitely not a singular entity.
From my perspective, Jesus was calling Peter an accuser. Or in other words, he was being adversarial to what he was trying to explain / teach. Peter wasn't exactly the brightest bulb in the bunch.
And don't get me started on the Roman Catholics placing him in Rome to become the first Pope. Grr....
whats this placing stuff?
|
|
Placing the blame is bad exegesis and too neat from a literal point of view by applying it to an influencing daemon. Jesus simply called Peter out.Actually Satan was giving the idea to Peter who said it to Jesus. It was not Peter Jesus was referring to. He just recognized that Satan was behind it. Remember that Jesus was a man and was tempted like a man just as any of us are.I'm sure you recall Jesus calling Peter a Satan. Does that mean he's THE SATAN? Or was Jesus just calling him an epithet using it as a descriptive adjective?I've always heard it explained as yes, he was actually calling him Satan... as in "You're doubting me, that's sinful, stop doing it" or "stop acting like the Devil and trying to talk me out of what I'm supposed to do". Sort of a "shock him back into his senses" maneuver.
This is honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone claim Satan as it's used in the Bible as not referring to an actual singular entity.
You might be right. Just giving my reading of it. :)
|
|
I have not read any of this thread, but I'm gonna throw in an anecdote, take it or leave it....
At a swim meet this evening. Thunder kept delaying things.
As we are packing to leave some little kid (4ish) walks up and starts talking to me.
He says something about the big thunder and I say "yeah..."
He says: "Thunder is magic. God makes it."I looked at him and said: "Yeah that's right."
And, speaking as both an engineer and an atheist, I meant it.
Interesting. I guessed at first because you weren't willing to force your beliefs on a child. What I don't follow is why you say you meant it.
|
|
I'm sure you recall Jesus calling Peter a Satan. Does that mean he's THE SATAN? Or was Jesus just calling him an epithet using it as a descriptive adjective?I've always heard it explained as yes, he was actually calling him Satan... as in "You're doubting me, that's sinful, stop doing it" or "stop acting like the Devil and trying to talk me out of what I'm supposed to do". Sort of a "shock him back into his senses" maneuver.
This is honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone claim Satan as it's used in the Bible as not referring to an actual singular entity.
The ha-satan, in its original origin, was definitely not a singular entity.
From my perspective, Jesus was calling Peter an accuser. Or in other words, he was being adversarial to what he was trying to explain / teach. Peter wasn't exactly the brightest bulb in the bunch.
And don't get me started on the Roman Catholics placing him in Rome to become the first Pope. Grr....
whats this placing stuff?
I'm not entirely sure what he means either because I seem to have missed that bit somewhere in my research.
He says something about the big thunder and I say "yeah..."
He says: "Thunder is magic. God makes it."I looked at him and said: "Yeah that's right."
And, speaking as both an engineer and an atheist, I meant it.
Given the age of the kid, I'd probably just roll my eyes or make a noncommittal noise. But I'm antisocial. If a teenager told me that, I'd start by asking him how he knew that. But I'm a known jerk.
|
|
LOL, quite!I err. Tautology correct. Translation incorrect. Those lacking vowels can be quite confusing. Curious to hear my theory?@ Urizen:
The tautology of I AM WHAT I AM isn't incorrect, by definition of tautology. :P It is, however, chronological by necessity. It doesn't need to imply staticisity, though I geuss it will to some.:\
I don't have the literal Hebrew in front of me, so I'm going straight from memory. I'm going to assume that some of us are aware that Hebrew - in that form - did not contain vowels; only consonants. Which explains the whole Jehovah vs Yahweh mix-up.
I AM THAT I AM is the common interpretation. My proposal:
I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE or I WILL BECOME WHAT I WILL BECOME.
It removes 'God' from the static unchanging omnipresent being that we've always succumbed to anthropomorphism ... and allows 'God' to become a dynamic ... changing ... verb.
For some people, this could cause a paradigm shift in thought. I have more to go on with this, but I'll leave it here for now.
** spoiler omitted **
The ancient Hebrew is Ehyeh asher ehyeh and the correct, or rather closer translation is I-shall-be that I-shall-be. Meaning that it is in fact a dynamic statement. In fact taking a look at the names of God and closer translations from the Old Testament most of them are in such a way as to be both plural and unisex.
And don't get me started on the Roman Catholics placing him in Rome to become the first Pope. Grr....
whats this placing stuff?
Even if I were a believer, I could never subscribe to the belief that Peter actually made it to Rome. He was needed to be there for the literal support for apostolic succession.
I don't necessarily question Peter's affections for Jesus, but he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
The ancient Hebrew is Ehyeh asher ehyeh and the correct, or rather closer translation is I-shall-be that I-shall-be. Meaning that it is in fact a dynamic statement. In fact taking a look at the names of God and closer translations from the Old Testament most of them are in such a way as to be both plural and unisex.
Or WE-SHALL-BECOME THAT WE-SHALL-BECOME. All this nonsense trying to say in Genesis that the We-Us pronouns were done in the formal fashion is absurd. Elohim makes absolutely more sense. The problem is that we lack a suitable syntax in our language to define a word as a verb in both the plural and unisex (or neuter?) tense. Call it a language limitation, if we must?
|
|
And don't get me started on the Roman Catholics placing him in Rome to become the first Pope. Grr....
whats this placing stuff?
Even if I were a believer, I could never subscribe to the belief that Peter actually made it to Rome. He was needed to be there for the literal support for apostolic succession.
I don't necessarily question Peter's affections for Jesus, but he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
Well then you have me at a loss. He was one of the leaders in Rome after the death of Jesus. While he was no Paul, he was a fisherman not a lawyer, he was also not the dumbest of the bunch. Historical records show that he and Paul both died in Rome, not to mention traditional support and the fact that a body of the 1st century was in fact found in his tomb.
Well then you have me at a loss. He was one of the leaders in Rome after the death of Jesus. While he was no Paul, he was a fisherman not a lawyer, he was also not the dumbest of the bunch. Historical records show that he and Paul both died in Rome, not to mention traditional support and the fact that a body of the 1st century was in fact found in his tomb.
Before I continue, does your beliefs require as a matter of faith that Peter wrote his epistles and that Paul wrote every one of his? Or what's your position?
|
|
Or WE-SHALL-BECOME THAT WE-SHALL-BECOME. All this nonsense trying to say in Genesis that the We-Us pronouns were done in the formal fashion is absurd. Elohim makes absolutely more sense. The problem is that we lack a suitable syntax in our language to define a word as a verb in both the plural and unisex (or neuter?) tense. Call it a language limitation, if we must?The ancient Hebrew is Ehyeh asher ehyeh and the correct, or rather closer translation is I-shall-be that I-shall-be. Meaning that it is in fact a dynamic statement. In fact taking a look at the names of God and closer translations from the Old Testament most of them are in such a way as to be both plural and unisex.
Ehyeh is in fact a singular pronoun and could be translated as either I AM or rather I SHALL, but would be incorrect as a WE. I am not an expert but have been told this by those who can in fact do translations.
|
|
Well then you have me at a loss. He was one of the leaders in Rome after the death of Jesus. While he was no Paul, he was a fisherman not a lawyer, he was also not the dumbest of the bunch. Historical records show that he and Paul both died in Rome, not to mention traditional support and the fact that a body of the 1st century was in fact found in his tomb.Before I continue, does your beliefs require as a matter of faith that Peter wrote his epistles and that Paul wrote every one of his? Or what's your position?
While yes I believe they did in fact write them there is a long history of the time of writing a document and in fact claiming it was written by another. My faith will not change or adjust one iota if said documents are shown to be created by another.
While yes I believe they did in fact write them there is a long history of the time of writing a document and in fact claiming it was written by another. My faith will not change or adjust one iota if said documents are shown to be created by another.Well then you have me at a loss. He was one of the leaders in Rome after the death of Jesus. While he was no Paul, he was a fisherman not a lawyer, he was also not the dumbest of the bunch. Historical records show that he and Paul both died in Rome, not to mention traditional support and the fact that a body of the 1st century was in fact found in his tomb.Before I continue, does your beliefs require as a matter of faith that Peter wrote his epistles and that Paul wrote every one of his? Or what's your position?
That's cool. I don't believe Peter authored a single epistle (and as you said, he was a fisherman and not a lawyer. I don't think he even had the literacy to compose such). Paul, on the other hand, definitely authored a number of his epistles. There are a couple others that may have been from his 'school' of discipleship, but not necessarily by his hand.
And as for the historical records ... conveniently provided by...?
Having Peter go to Rome to preach the gospel makes no sense based on the man we are provided -- inside and outside the canon. It would be way out of his comfort zone. Paul had called him out on such with their differences in understanding.
A Petrine primacy with a Pauline Christology ... just seems contradictory (and/or in conflict with my sensibility). But alas, a necessary 'syncretism' in order to affirm and hold fast the orthodoxy.
It would be an interesting task for some folks to read the Tanakh in the order as originally compiled and then read the New Testament in the order the documents were originally authored (the Pauline epistles, followed by Mark, then Matthew (and/or Luke), then John.... etc).