Myth vs religion (for Paulo Joe)
Sean
Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
> What about "The Lord of the Rings?" Written by a Catholic, who actually
> had enough intelligence to tell the difference between myth and religion.
Would you care to say more about the difference?
To me they're the same, except that "myth" is someone else's
religion.
For example, the stories of Zeus and Apollo are myths to most people
these days; we can take them or leave them, but the ancient Greeks
built temples to those gods and worshipped them.
Regards. Sean
LDL
propels a human being into a belief metaphysically.
Studies have shown that every human being on this earth has to believe in
something. There are various systems if religions and organisational
beliefs. Some people do not belief in a metaphysical being but believes in
human kindness. Some people religions are financial gains or materials as
to some people religions is to do without.
I think that what separates us from the animals as that we have some reason
of a metaphysical being and place out lives around that.
Mythology are stories that came from those beliefs.
"Sean" <no....@no.spam> wrote in message news:3F0606D2...@no.spam...
Paulo Joe Jingy
> In article "Re: HARRY POTTER'S MAGIC BANNED BY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL"
> Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
>
>
>>What about "The Lord of the Rings?" Written by a Catholic, who actually
>>had enough intelligence to tell the difference between myth and religion.
>
>
> Would you care to say more about the difference?
>
> To me they're the same, except that "myth" is someone else's
> religion.
I could be wrong (I hope I'm not)--but I don't think anyone worships the
mythological creatures that J.R.R. Tolkien invented for "The Lord of the
Rings".
As a Catholic, J.R.R Tolkien worshiped God. He didn't confuse God with
the creatures he invented.
And there's a world of difference between "Gandalf the Grey" (a
fictional character) and "Jesus Christ" (a historical fact).
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
D C
----------
In article <be56ok$1cqko$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>, Paulo Joe Jingy
Ian McFadyen
"LDL" <ac...@yilongprod.com> wrote in message
news:mLoNa.812$s_5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Myth is simply a story that had a moral meaning as that religion actually
> propels a human being into a belief metaphysically.
Not all myths had a "moral meaning". Many came from animism, the primitive
belief that natural phenomena - rivers, oceans, trees etc had spirits within
them. Many myths were stories about how the natural world came about, others
related to religious ceremonies performed to ensure fertility, birth, growth
of crops, afterlife etc
> Studies have shown that every human being on this earth has to believe in
> something.
An odd way of putting it. It would be more correct to say that most humanl
cultures promote certain things as ideals. It's not a requirement that
people believe in something.
> beliefs. Some people do not belief in a metaphysical being but believes
in
> human kindness. Some people religions are financial gains or materials as
> to some people religions is to do without.
>
> I think that what separates us from the animals as that we have some
reason
> of a metaphysical being and place out lives around that.
To put it more objectively: unlike animals, humans can believe in things
that they've never personally seen. This has an up-side (people can know
more things than they've learned from their own experience) and a down-side
(people can be persuaded to believe in things that don't exist.)
>
>
nmstevens
Clearly, there are works of fiction like Lord of the Rings, or Star
Wars that were invented in imitation of actual myths and, as you say,
hopefully, nobody mistakes those fictional faux myths for anything
other than what they are.
But clearly, what Tolkien was attempting to do was to create what he
felt that Britain lacked -- which was its own indigineous homegrown
mythology, as distinct from, say, Arthurian myth cycles, which he felt
were bastardized non-home grown legends brought in by way of the
Norman conquests.
Even so, of course -- it would still never be more than simply a work
of fiction.
Genuine mythology, as the original poster stated, must stand, I fear,
much closer to religion than you might like. Where do Zeus and Athena
or Thor and Loki or Amon Ra figure as between religion and myth? At
one point they stood as firmly in the minds of their believers as
"historical facts" as you now assert Jesus Christ to be.
What is it precisely that makes a woman impregnated by Zeus merely a
myth whilst a woman impregnated by Jehovah rises somehow to the level
of "historical fact" -- other than a head count of current believers?
Ultimately, religious belief both stands and falls not upon "fact" --
historical or otherwise -- but upon faith -- and it is when faith
fails, ultimately, that religions cease to be accepted as "fact" and
instead become the stuff of mythology.
NMS
Paulo Joe Jingy
I realize that you don't believe Jesus Christ is God. But are you also
suggesting that Jesus Christ is *not* a historical fact? Are you
asserting that a *man* known as Jesus of Nazareth *never* walked the
earth?
If you are--I don't know how much history you will accept, because Jesus
Christ is clearly a "historical fact". Even the enemies of
Christianity (at least most of them) have admitted that much, over the
last 2000 years.
> What is it precisely that makes a woman impregnated by Zeus merely a
> myth whilst a woman impregnated by Jehovah rises somehow to the level
> of "historical fact" -- other than a head count of current believers?
Precisely because one is a myth and the other is a fact. Saying (or
proving) one is false, doesn't automatically make the other false.
There can be true and false religions. It's not a logical premise to
state that since one religious belief has been proven false, then
another (or all other) religious beliefs are also false.
> Ultimately, religious belief both stands and falls not upon "fact" --
> historical or otherwise -- but upon faith -- and it is when faith
> fails, ultimately, that religions cease to be accepted as "fact" and
> instead become the stuff of mythology.
At least one religion is based on fact and faith: Christianity. Fact:
Jesus Christ lived, as a man on earth. Faith: Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of the living God.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
"Thus Gandalf faced and suffered death; and came back or was sent back,
as he says, with enhanced power. But though one may be in this reminded
of the Gospels, it is not really the same thing at all. The Incarnation
of God is an *infinitely* greater thing than anything I would dare to
write. Here I am only concerned with Death as part of the nature,
physical and spiritual, of Man, and with Hope without guarantees."
JRR Tolkien, from letter #181 "The Letters of JRR Tolkien" Published by
Houghton Mifflin, Edited by Humphrey Carpenter
RonB
> But clearly, what Tolkien was attempting to do was to create what he
> felt that Britain lacked -- which was its own indigineous homegrown
> mythology, as distinct from, say, Arthurian myth cycles, which he felt
> were bastardized non-home grown legends brought in by way of the
> Norman conquests.
Actually, no, not according to what I've read about Tolkien and his "Lord
of the Rings." First point is this, he borrowed heavily from Norse
mythology -- which directly opposes your point. The name "Middle-Earth"
comes directly from Norse mythology.
But the main point is this, I don't think Tolkien had any particular "aim"
in writing "The Lord of the Rings" -- except to entertain. I read
somewhere that his object was to write a "heroic romance" that would hold
the attention of adults as "The Hobbit" had held the attention of
children. From his childhood Tolkien had been a "sub-creator," (as he
referred to fantasy writers in his essay "On Writing Faerey Stories")
constantly creating new languages and histories (or refining his "Middle-
Earth"). When he was seven his father destroyed papers containing several
languages that he had created because he considered it a waste of the
child's time. Tolkien hated metaphor and often made the point that his
story was "what it was."
It also should be pointed out that the "Lord of the Rings" used as a
backdrop the world that J.R.R. Tolkien had created over several decades
for his own amusement. What made the story was his using Hobbits as the
"normal people" going off in the strange, big world.
> Even so, of course -- it would still never be more than simply a work
> of fiction.
>
> Genuine mythology, as the original poster stated, must stand, I fear,
> much closer to religion than you might like. Where do Zeus and Athena
> or Thor and Loki or Amon Ra figure as between religion and myth? At
> one point they stood as firmly in the minds of their believers as
> "historical facts" as you now assert Jesus Christ to be.
Which is all beside the point when speaking of "The Lord of the Rings."
Tolkien never intended that his characters be thought of as gods. This was
a story based on the world he created and borrowed from mythology. Simply
a story -- a very good one. If anything, what you will find in Tolkien's
"mythology" is his Catholic belief in the black and white concepts of
right and wrong. Many see in Galadriel an echo of the Virgin Mary. But
Tolkien would deny it. It is clear, however, that Tolkien superimposed
Christian concepts of good and evil on top of the mythology he borrowed
and created.
> What is it precisely that makes a woman impregnated by Zeus merely a
> myth whilst a woman impregnated by Jehovah rises somehow to the level
> of "historical fact" -- other than a head count of current believers?
And the fact that historians wrote of an historical Jesus, named places
and times, where none of this can be said for Zeus.
> Ultimately, religious belief both stands and falls not upon "fact" --
> historical or otherwise -- but upon faith -- and it is when faith
> fails, ultimately, that religions cease to be accepted as "fact" and
> instead become the stuff of mythology.
Which, strangely enough, has never happened with Christianity -- even in
darkest post-Roman empire times. But you're right, faith is vital -- but
the fact that faith in Jesus is based on history, documents from the early
Fathers, changes the faith to something different than the Greek, Roman,
and Norse mythological "faiths."
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Walter Geist
> Wars that were invented in imitation of actual myths and, as you say,
> hopefully, nobody mistakes those fictional faux myths for anything
> other than what they are.
>
> But clearly, what Tolkien was attempting to do was to create what he
> felt that Britain lacked -- which was its own indigineous homegrown
> mythology, as distinct from, say, Arthurian myth cycles, which he felt
> were bastardized non-home grown legends brought in by way of the
> Norman conquests.
>
> Even so, of course -- it would still never be more than simply a work
> of fiction.
>
> Genuine mythology, as the original poster stated, must stand, I fear,
> much closer to religion than you might like. Where do Zeus and Athena
> or Thor and Loki or Amon Ra figure as between religion and myth? At
> one point they stood as firmly in the minds of their believers as
> "historical facts" as you now assert Jesus Christ to be.
>
> What is it precisely that makes a woman impregnated by Zeus merely a
> myth whilst a woman impregnated by Jehovah rises somehow to the level
> of "historical fact" -- other than a head count of current believers?
>
> Ultimately, religious belief both stands and falls not upon "fact" --
> historical or otherwise -- but upon faith -- and it is when faith
> fails, ultimately, that religions cease to be accepted as "fact" and
> instead become the stuff of mythology.
A "religion" is an organised set of beliefs, a dogma. A myth doesn't
have to be organised or formulated by the consciousness, it can be
vague.
I think the word "myth" applies to different things. On the one had it
refers to ancient and modern "beliefs" such as Zeus, or alien
abductions.
But in the sense of Star Wars, or Lord of the Rings, or modern people
reading ancient mythology, obviously people don't "believe" the
stories. But the stories seem to appeal very strongly to people, and
the same themes constantly reoccur. These types of stories seem to
fill a psychological need that was left empty when modern people
stopped believing in the old myths and as mainstream religions stopped
appealing to people as much.
Walter Geist
> If you are--I don't know how much history you will accept, because Jesus
> Christ is clearly a "historical fact".
Jesus was a man. Whether or not he was the "Christ" is a matter of
debate. Jews think the Christ still hasn't come yet.
> At least one religion is based on fact and faith: Christianity. Fact:
> Jesus Christ lived, as a man on earth. Faith: Jesus is the Christ,
> the Son of the living God.
Jesus is also a prophet in Islam. So, according to your theory, both
Islam and Christianity are based on "fact".
Here's another "fact" for you, the bible (whatever version you happen
to read) has been altered tremendously since it was originally
written.
nmstevens
Well, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, bare the same relationship to history as
characters like Arthur, Moses, and Robin Hood. That is, while they
*may* have had actual, physical historical precursors in the flesh -
who those real life people may have been we really know virtually
nothing about -- the real historical kernels have been so subsumed in
(pardon the expression) mythology that our ability to make any
reliable historical statements about them at all -- in the sense that
we can make such statements about, say, the latter Biblical Kings, is
very limited.
It's in the nature of the tug between history and mythology -- some
things -- Adam and Eve -- all mythology. Other things, like the
Babylonian exile -- are clearly grounded in historical fact. Other
things fall in between. The evidence is simply inconclusive. We have
strong evidence to support that there was an Israelite presence in
Egypt -- but no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Israelites
were even held in bondage in Egypt. No evidence to suggest the
plagues, no evidence to suggest that the Exodus, as an historical
event, ever happened, or that Moses, as a real person, ever existed.
So I think that the strongest weight of evidence, however powerful and
compelling the story of the Exodus may be, and despite those
tantalizing bits of evidence, I think that the story, on the whole,
must placed in the realm of myth -- not history.
And likewise, whether there was a local chieftain somwhere named Artu
the Bear is really irrelevant to what ultimately became the story of
King Arthur, complete with the Holy Grail, which probably started,
within the context of the stories, not as a magical chalice, but as a
magical kettle. And one can no more invoke the historical evidence of
Artu as evidence for reality of the Holy Grail, than one can invoke
whatever independent historical evidence there is for the existence of
the person of Jesus as evidence for the miraculous impregnation of the
virgin Mary.
The two must stand as fundamentally different things. Your faith,
however substantial, is not built on "historical facts." Those facts,
in truth, are about as substantial as the facts that support the
historical existence of Roland, Robin Hood, and Agammemnon.
Which is not to say that those men did *not* exist -- but historical
*facts?* -- that's putting the case a wee bit too strongly.
But from the perspective of religous faith -- what difference does it
make? It's not based on the evidence anyway.
If it was, you'd reject it -- just the way you reject Zeus, and
Athena, and Thor and all those other gods, because the available
evidence tells you that they are simply absurd.
NMS
ProdInAHat
> For example, the stories of Zeus and Apollo are myths to most people
> these days; we can take them or leave them, but the ancient Greeks
> built temples to those gods and worshipped them.
>
>
December 25th was established by Aurlian in AD264 as Dies Natilus
Invictus Solis or the "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun" ...
Christians soon perceived an opportunity and used one of the biggest
dates in the Pagan calandar as the birthday of Christ, essentially
accquiring the pagan worshippers and easing the transition to a new
faith.
This is why Christ is often pictured with a crown of light--aligning him
with the sun god Helios.
etc etc 'Religion' is merely transposed myth. The Vatican remains pretty
pagan to this day--you would be surprised.
As for Harry Potter, it lifts 'myth' directly, I recall seeing a three-
headed dog in one of the trailers. How clever.
ProdInAHat
195.92.193.157:
> Christians soon perceived an opportunity and used one of the biggest
> dates in the Pagan calandar as the birthday of Christ, essentially
> accquiring the pagan worshippers and easing the transition to a new
> faith.
like the Golden Globes.
ProdInAHat
> characters like Arthur, Moses, and Robin Hood.
The "Three Marys" also have twin-sisters in Greek mythology. It's surprising
how much 'myth' was assimilated.
Alan Brooks
> > Christians soon perceived an opportunity and used one of the biggest
> > dates in the Pagan calandar as the birthday of Christ, essentially
> > accquiring the pagan worshippers and easing the transition to a new
> > faith.
>
> like the Golden Globes.
Is this another Christy Canyon thread?
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- Round 'em up & move 'em out...
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<beb4hk$35aug$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>>nmstevens wrote:
>>At least one religion is based on fact and faith: Christianity. Fact:
>> Jesus Christ lived, as a man on earth. Faith: Jesus is the Christ,
>>the Son of the living God.
>>
> Well, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, bare the same relationship to history as
> characters like Arthur, Moses, and Robin Hood. That is, while they
> *may* have had actual, physical historical precursors in the flesh -
I love the qualifiers. You say, Jesus *may* have actually existed in
the flesh. There is far more evidence that Jesus existed in the flesh,
than there is for many historical characters that I'm sure you take for
granted.
> who those real life people may have been we really know virtually
> nothing about -- the real historical kernels have been so subsumed in
> (pardon the expression) mythology that our ability to make any
> reliable historical statements about them at all -- in the sense that
> we can make such statements about, say, the latter Biblical Kings, is
> very limited.
Why do you say that? People had invented writing long before Jesus
Christ existed. Are you suggesting that they were unable to record
history, at the time of Jesus? As I said before--even the enemies of
Christianity have admitted the existence of Jesus Christ for over 2000
years.
---snip---
> The two must stand as fundamentally different things. Your faith,
> however substantial, is not built on "historical facts." Those facts,
> in truth, are about as substantial as the facts that support the
> historical existence of Roland, Robin Hood, and Agammemnon.
In your opinion. You'll notice, in my original message I very carefully
described Jesus Christ "as a historical fact". I very carefully avoided
calling him God, or the Son of God. I didn't mention faith, at that
time. The fact that you have trouble even admitting that Jesus "walked
in the flesh" shows more about your views of religion, than your grasp
of "historical fact".
> Which is not to say that those men did *not* exist -- but historical
> *facts?* -- that's putting the case a wee bit too strongly.
Once again--here's what I said in my original message.
"And there's a world of difference between "Gandalf the Grey" (a
fictional character) and "Jesus Christ" (a historical fact)."
I was very specific. I limited my discussion to the fact that unlike
"Gandalf the Grey", "Jesus Christ" really existed. Historical evidence
supports me, on this.
> But from the perspective of religous faith -- what difference does it
> make? It's not based on the evidence anyway.
It can be. This evidence is called miracles. Miracles are supernatural
(above nature). They can't be explained by natural causes. But they
have been witnessed and documented. And in many cases they have been
witnessed and documented by *secular* and skeptical men and women.
People not inclined to believe in the supernatural.
But you are right that my religion is based on faith. If people refuse
to believe, they'll refuse to believe miracles, too. I believe in Jesus
Christ, by faith. You believe that he didn't exist (or at least isn't
God), by faith.
> If it was, you'd reject it -- just the way you reject Zeus, and
> Athena, and Thor and all those other gods, because the available
> evidence tells you that they are simply absurd.
I reject Zeus, Athena and Thor. I don't reject that there is still a
false religion, called "Odinism". Or that some people still worship
Zeus and Athena. The numbers may be small, but they are still there.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Paulo Joe Jingy
Because Mary happened to be a common name, it *somehow* means that Mary,
the mother of Jesus was somehow assimilated from the "twin sisters of
Greek mythology"?
That's a stretch.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<beb4hk$35aug$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>>If you are--I don't know how much history you will accept, because Jesus
>>Christ is clearly a "historical fact".
>
>
> Jesus was a man. Whether or not he was the "Christ" is a matter of
> debate. Jews think the Christ still hasn't come yet.
>
>
>
>
>>At least one religion is based on fact and faith: Christianity. Fact:
>> Jesus Christ lived, as a man on earth. Faith: Jesus is the Christ,
>>the Son of the living God.
> Jesus is also a prophet in Islam. So, according to your theory, both
> Islam and Christianity are based on "fact".
You missed half of what I said. "Christianity is fact and *faith*".
And you admit that the existence of Jesus is a historical fact. And,
yes, the fact that the false religion of Islam acknowledges that Jesus
Christ existed, in the flesh, is more evidence of the fact that he
existed, in the flesh. But since they claim he was merely a "great
prophet" and not God, it is completely contrary to what I believe.
Many (or all) religions are based on *some* facts. The fact that the
sun exists, doesn't also make it a fact that it's hauled across the sky
in a chariot.
> Here's another "fact" for you, the bible (whatever version you happen
> to read) has been altered tremendously since it was originally
> written.
Would you like to give some particulars? Or is that a statement of faith?
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Dr. Jai Maharaj
ProdInAHat <h...@t.biz> posted:
I posted the following a few years ago:
[ Subject: DEC 25 ORIGINALLY A PAGAN HOLIDAY, JESUS BORN SOME OTHER DAY,
[ SANTA U.S. INVENTION
[ From: Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ Message-ID: <Christian-1...@news.mantra.com>
[ Date: December 25, 1999
Let's see: Dec. 25 was originally a Pagan holiday.
Jesus was born some other day. And Santa? A U.S.
invention. 'C' for Christmas, or cash
By Leonard Peikoff
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Saturday, December 25, 1999
Christmas in America is an exuberant display of human
ingenuity, capitalist productivity, and the enjoyment of
life. Yet all of these are castigated as "materialistic."
The real meaning of the holiday, we are told, is assorted
Nativity tales and altruist injunctions that no one takes
seriously. In fact, Christmas as we celebrate it today is
a 19th-century American invention. The freedom and
prosperity of post-Civil War America created the happiest
nation in history.
The result was the desire to celebrate, to revel in the
goods and pleasures of life on earth. Christmas (which
was not a federal holiday until 1870) became the leading
American outlet for this feeling.
People have long celebrated the winter solstice as the
time when the days begin to lengthen, indicating the
earth's return to life. The ancient Romans feasted and
reveled during the festival of Saturnalia. Early
Christians condemned these Roman celebrations. The
Christians were waiting for the end of the world and had
only scorn for earthly pleasures.
By the fourth century, the pagans were worshipping the
god of the sun on Dec. 25, and the Christians came to a
decision: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. They claimed
(contrary to accepted tradition) that the date was Jesus'
birthday, and they usurped the solstice holiday for their
Church.
Even after the Christians stole Christmas, they were
ambivalent about it. The holiday was inherently a pro-
life festival of earthly renewal, but the Christians
preached renunciation, sacrifice, and concern for the
next world, not this one.
Then came the major developments of 19th-century
capitalism - industrialization, urbanization, the triumph
of science - all of it leading to easy transportation,
efficient mail delivery, the widespread publishing of
books and magazines, inventions making life comfortable
and exciting, and the rise of entrepreneurs who
understood that the way to make a profit was to produce
something good and sell it to a mass market.
For the first time, the giving of gifts became a major
feature of Christmas. Thanks to capitalism, there was
enough wealth to make gifts possible, a great productive
apparatus to advertise them and make them available
cheaply, and a country so content that men wanted to
reach out to their friends and express their enjoyment of
life. The whole country took with glee to giving gifts on
an unprecedented scale.
Santa Claus is a thoroughly American invention. There was
a feeble holiday once connected to a St. Nicholas (on
Dec. 5). In 1822, an American named Clement Clarke Moore
wrote a poem about a visit from St. Nick. It was Moore
(and a few other New Yorkers) who invented St. Nick's
physical appearance and personality and came up with the
idea that Santa travels on Christmas Eve in a sleigh
pulled by reindeer, comes down the chimney, stuffs toys
in good children's stockings, then goes back to the North
Pole.
Of course, some denounced Santa as the Antichrist,
because he had succeeded in pushing Jesus to the
background.
Furthermore, Santa implicitly rejected the whole
Christian ethic. He did not denounce the rich and demand
that they give everything to the poor. On the contrary,
he gave gifts to rich and poor children alike.
Nor is Santa a champion of Christian mercy or
unconditional love. No, he is for justice - giving only
to good children, not bad ones.
All the best customs of Christmas - from carols to the
tree to spectacular decorations - have their roots in
pagan ideas and practices. And these customs have been
greatly amplified by American culture as the product of
reason, science, business, worldliness, egoism (i.e., the
pursuit of happiness).
America's tragedy is that its intellectual leaders have
typically tried to replace happiness with guilt by
insisting that the spiritual meaning of Christmas is
religion and self-sacrifice for Tiny Tim or his
equivalent.
The spiritual must start with recognizing reality: Life
requires reason, selfishness, capitalism. Those things
are what Christmas should celebrate - and, really,
beneath all the pretense, they are what Christmas
celebrates.
It is time to take the Christ out of Christmas and turn
the holiday into a guiltlessly egoistic, pro-reason,
this-worldly, commercial celebration.
Leonard Peikoff, who founded the Ayn Rand Institute, is
the foremost authority on objectivism, the philosophy of
Ayn Rand.
Source - http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/99/Dec/25/opinion/PEIKOFF25.htm
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ Subject: TV DOCUMENTARY SAYS VIRGIN MARY WAS RAPED
[ From: Dr. Jai Maharaj
[ Message-ID: <Xtian-140...@news.mantra.com>
[ Date: December 24, 2002
TV doco claims Virgin Mary was raped
ninemsn.com
Monday, December 23, 2002
A Catholic bishop criticised a British television
documentary that suggests the Virgin Mary may have been
raped by a Roman soldier.
The Bishop of Portsmouth said the BBC program, The Virgin
Mary, was crude and offensive by disregarding the
concerns and beliefs of millions of Christians.
The controversy came as a survey revealed that a quarter
of Church of England clergy do not believe in the virgin
birth of Christ.
The Sunday Telegraph survey found that 27 per cent of 500
clerics questioned doubt privately the traditional story
of Jesus's birth.
The program questions the Bible's interpretation of the
Virgin Mary, suggesting she may even have been called
Miriam, and that she may have been raped by a Roman
soldier.
Other theories suggest her husband Joseph could have made
her pregnant or that she had an illicit affair. . . .
[...]
This is only an excerpt -- read the complete news at:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_44101.asp
News Plus
http://www.mantra.com/newsplus
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
In article <writing-05j9...@news.mantra.com>,
Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
Paulo Joe Jingy
Dr. Jai Maharaj
BBC Documentary on Virgin Mary Alarms Believers
Contains Offensive Speculations, Says Bishop
PORTSMOUTH, England, DEC. 18, 2002 (Zenit.org).- The BBC network is considering
the release of an offensive documentary on the Virgin Mary, according to
Catholic Church officials.
"I believe that, in an age when we are all doing our best to build up a world
of racial and religious tolerance, programs which, however unwittingly, attack
the icons of major religious faiths, are unwelcome and troubling," Bishop
Crispian Hollis of Portsmouth said, expressing his concerns over reports that
BBC is set to broadcast a program which claims to examine the life of the
Blessed Virgin.
The documentary reportedly presents a series of historical theories on Mary's
life including that Jesus was the offspring of a Roman soldier who raped her,
or possibly the result of an illicit affair.
Reports of the documentary emerged in the Catholic press late last week and
have triggered alarm within the Catholic and wider communities.
Bishop Hollis, the chairman of the Church's Strategic Media Committee and an
ex-BBC producer, has indicated that he plans to write to BBC director general
Greg Dyke, to express his concerns on behalf of the Catholic community of
England and Wales.
On Tuesday, Bishop Hollis said: "I believe very strongly that programs of this
nature should maintain sensitivity to those whose cherished beliefs are
concerned."
"The Virgin Mary is clearly a person whose life and times are immensely
important to the whole of Christian history," he added. "As Mother of God, she
is honored and venerated by millions of Catholics and other Christians within
these islands and all over the world."
"To include, within a historical examination of her life, confused and
unfounded guesswork, which carries with it crude and offensive speculation, is
not only unscholarly but runs the risk of undermining the very integrity of the
project itself," the bishop said.
ZENIT is an International News Agency.
Web page <http://www.zenit.org/>
Copyright 2001, Innovative Media, Inc.
Richard Emblem
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
I posted:
Dr. Jai Maharaj
posted for discussion
BBC defends Jesus documentary after 500 complaints
Ananova
Monday December 23, 2002 9:02 PM
A BBC programme that suggested the Virgin Mary might have been 13 when
she gave birth to Jesus has prompted more than 500 complaints.
The documentary, shown on BBC1 at 8pm last night, was condemned by
church groups before it was broadcast.
Virgin Mary led to a protest outside BBC TV headquarters in London
while it was being aired.
The programme speculated that Mary was probably just 13 when she gave
birth. It also considered, before rejecting, the possibility that the
Virgin Mary became pregnant after being raped by a Roman soldier.
Presented by Sue Johnston, the show also raised doubts about the birth
of Jesus in a Bethlehem stable and the presence of the Three Wise Men.
Before the show was broadcast, the Bishop of Portsmouth, the Rt Rev
Crispian Hollis, expressed his displeasure in a statement.
He said: "To include, within a historical examination of her life,
confused and unfounded guesswork, which carries with it crude and
offensive speculation, is not only unscholarly but runs the risk of
undermining the very integrity of the project itself."
But a BBC spokeswoman said that Bishop Hollis was commenting before
the programme was aired and was basing his views on "misleading
reports" that the show suggested Mary had been raped.
"The programme made it quite clear that this was anti-Christian
slander circulated about 100 years after Jesus' death," the
spokeswoman said.
She added that the majority of the "500-plus" complaints were received
before the show was broadcast.
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Previous posts:
Dr. Jai Maharaj
posted for discussion
Priest's book says Mary wasn't Virgin
By D Jose Thiruvananthapuram
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/jun/22keral.htm
A Christian priest's book depicting Jesus Christ as the illicit son of a
Roman soldier and detailing his teenage sexual encounters has created a
furore in Kerala.
The book's author, T Samuel Nettiyadan, is at the receiving end from several
quarters for questioning the fundamental Christian faith that Jesus Christ
was born to Virgin Mary impregnated by the Holy Spirit. The St Thomas Mar
Thoma Syrian Church, to which he belongs, has excommunicated him.
The Syrian Church, which is considered tolerant to criticism and receptive
to fresh ideas compared to its sister denominations in the state, decided to
excommunicate the priest after a commission appointed by Archbishop
Alexandar Mar Thoma found him guilty of blasphemy.
The commission was of the view that the book -- Joseph Enna Thachan (Joseph,
the carpenter) -- was not only against the faith, but it also went against
the spirit of the oath the priest took before his ordination. The Church
Secretary said they were constrained to take the harsh step after
Nettiyadan, despite being given several opportunites to admit his mistake,
did not budge.
Nettiyadan, however, denies this. The ex-priest told this correspondent that
his four apologies and a personal affirmation of his faith in Jesus Christ
and Christianity before the Commission had failed to move the authorities.
He said he was prepared to even withdraw the book.
He felt that the punishment he got from the Church was too harsh. "We (his
family) have been totally alienated from the society after I was
excommunicated," he said and added that people around were looking at the
family with contempt.
His family, his wife and two children, are now living in Valakam near Kollam
district of Kerala struggling hard to make both ends met.
However, Nettiyadan has no regrets about writing the book, which he thinks
was essential to readjust the faith beyond the year 2000. ''I thought the
de-mythologisation of Christ was the best way for the people of the 21st
century to understand and believe in Christ.''
Although several books have been written on Christ and his life in
Malayalam, a priest questioning the Christianity's core of the divine birth
of Jesus Christ is unimaginable.
Almost all the writers who ventured into such an "adventure" have had to pay
heavy price. While noted Malayalam playwright Antony saw his play Holy Sixth
Wound banned by the state government allegedly under pressure from the
Church, famous writer Paul Zacharia had faced angry protests for portraying
the human sensibilities of Christ in his short story Kannadi Kanmolavum
(Till you see the mirror) published in 1997.
Nettiyadan does not boast of any historical evidence to back his work, which
he said, was intuitive.
Nettiyadan said that the subject used to haunt his mind since his seminary
days. "I nursed it in my mind for 18 years and one day suddenly everything
started becoming clear. I could not resist the inner urge to pen it down,''
he said.
In fact the foreword of the book is the description of the revelation the
author gets from Christ himself about his unexplored period of his life. The
44-year-old ex-priest said that the work was the fulfillment of the quest
for Jesus Christ taught in the seminary. He said that it was a critical
study of Jesus of history than the Jesus of faith.
Nettiyadan said he could not accept Jesus as described in the Bible, as it
seemed to be motivated writing.
Nettiyadan admits that the reading of the works of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and
Swami Vivekanada during his seminary days had greatly influenced his
thinking. "I felt myself frustrated after reading the works of the first two
authors. I came out of that after reading Vivekananda," he said.
The story-line of the book is very simple. Mary, who's engaged to Joseph, is
raped by a Roman soldier. Neither she nor her mother are in a position to
resist. The Roman centurion, who visits her hut regularly, stops coming
after learning about the pregnancy. The news is received by Joseph with
shock and he backs out of the marriage.
However, the two come together accidentally and live an ordinary life.
Jesus, who is helping his father in carpentry, finds a lover in Mary's
widowed sister's daughter. Bewitched by her beauty, he regularly visits her
until he decides to answer the God's call to become the liberator of the
humanity.
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/jun/22keral.htm
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Previous posts follow:
Paulo Joe Jingy
Paulo Joe Jingy
Paulo Joe Jingy
Snoopy
Johnny Judas Jay "Can't Understand Normal Thinking" Maharaj wrote:
> Forwarded message from "Tulsidas19" <tulsi...@hotmail.com>
> posted for discussion
>
> Priest's book says Mary wasn't Virgin
>
> By D Jose Thiruvananthapuram
>
> http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/jun/22keral.htm
>
> A Christian priest's book depicting Jesus Christ as the illicit son of a
> Roman soldier and detailing his teenage sexual encounters has created a
> furore in Kerala.
>
>[....]
>
> Nettiyadan does not boast of any historical evidence to back his work, which
> he said, was intuitive.
>
> [....]
>
> In fact the foreword of the book is the description of the revelation the
> author gets from Christ himself about his unexplored period of his life. The
> 44-year-old ex-priest said that the work was the fulfillment of the quest
> for Jesus Christ taught in the seminary. He said that it was a critical
> study of Jesus of history than the Jesus of faith.
A "critical historical study" with no historical evidence to back it up?
That's sounds so much like the philosophy behind asstrollogy, n'est pas,
Johnny boya? And so predictable that assholes like tulsidas19 would
seize on this as "evidence". Now, if you and that tulsidas feller would
try to rectify the abominations still existing in Indian society today,
instead of merely directing venom elsewhere, you might actually do some
good. But, being a trained asstrolloger, doing good is not one of your
aspirations......
Got mangoes, boya?
Snoopy
Johnny Judas Jay "I can't help being a f**king d*ckhead" Maharaj wrote:
> Let's see: Dec. 25 was originally a Pagan holiday.
> Jesus was born some other day. And Santa? A U.S.
> invention.
So f**king what, asshole? Why don't you stick to scamming people with
your "the stars tell the future" bullshit? You are doing incredible
damage in these newgroups to the image of India and Indians, and you are
ruining any goodwill that may have existed for that country and it's
people. You think you are doing something positive for India or for
Hindus? WRONG, ASSHOLE!! Your posts are leading to the general
impression among non-Indian newsgroup readers that Indians are a bunch
of assholes with views like yours. Now go get your rusty flintlock,
clean it up, load it and blow your stupid head off, you jyotishit!
Got mangoes, you piece of jyotishit?
Sean O'Hara
declared...
Yes, Mary was a common name in Greece prior to the rise of
Christianity. Absolute historical fact.
I believe he means that the three Mary's mirror the three Fates
of Greek mythology (and the three Norns of Norse mythology) --
the Virgin, Whore, and Crone.
--
Sean O'Hara
"Harry goes through absolute hell every time he returns to school.
So I think that a bit of snogging would alleviate matters."
--J.K. Rowling
Paulo Joe Jingy
> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Paulo Joe Jingy
> declared...
>
>>ProdInAHat wrote:
>>
>>>>Well, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, bare the same relationship to history as
>>>>characters like Arthur, Moses, and Robin Hood.
>>>
>>>The "Three Marys" also have twin-sisters in Greek mythology. It's surprising
>>>how much 'myth' was assimilated.
>>
>>Because Mary happened to be a common name, it *somehow* means that Mary,
>>the mother of Jesus was somehow assimilated from the "twin sisters of
>>Greek mythology"?
>>
>
> Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!
>
Ummm, I don't want to interrupt you during mid-laugh, but I never
claimed Mary, the mother of Jesus, was Greek.
> I believe he means that the three Mary's mirror the three Fates
> of Greek mythology (and the three Norns of Norse mythology) --
> the Virgin, Whore, and Crone.
Really--in what way? I mean they absolutely don't apply to Mary, the
mother of Jesus, except in some peoples strange imaginations. There's
no connection.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Sean O'Hara
declared...
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
> > In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Paulo Joe Jingy
> > declared...
> >
> > of Greek mythology (and the three Norns of Norse mythology) --
> > the Virgin, Whore, and Crone.
>
> Really--in what way? I mean they absolutely don't apply to Mary, the
> mother of Jesus, except in some peoples strange imaginations. There's
> no connection.
>
three Marys who appeared at the cross in John 18:25 -- Mary the
Virgin, Mary Magdalene the Whore, and the Mary the sister of the
Virgin Mary (!) who's there to fill out the trifecta. This is
explicit in the gnostic tradition, particularly the Gospel of
Mary Magdalene, where they're treated as a single godhead, a
female trinity. If this is an invention of people's imaginations,
its as old as Christianity itself.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Paulo Joe Jingy
> declared...
>
>>Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>>In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Paulo Joe Jingy
>>>declared...
>>>
>>
>> > I believe he means that the three Mary's mirror the three Fates
>> > of Greek mythology (and the three Norns of Norse mythology) --
>> > the Virgin, Whore, and Crone.
>>
>>Really--in what way? I mean they absolutely don't apply to Mary, the
>>mother of Jesus, except in some peoples strange imaginations. There's
>>no connection.
>>
>
> But we aren't just talking about the Virgin Mary; the subject is the
> three Marys who appeared at the cross in John 18:25 -- Mary the
> Virgin, Mary Magdalene the Whore, and the Mary the sister of the
> Virgin Mary (!) who's there to fill out the trifecta. This is
> explicit in the gnostic tradition, particularly the Gospel of
> Mary Magdalene, where they're treated as a single godhead, a
> female trinity.
"Gnostic tradition" has nothing to do with Christianity. If you want to
delve into conspiracy theories and groundless suppositions, you can (if
you'll pardon the expression) get into all kinds of weird shit.
> If this is an invention of people's imaginations,
> its as old as Christianity itself.
Yeah? And your point is?... I mean Christ lived on earth, as a man,
only 2000 years ago. People were inventing false religions long before
that.
(Kind of abandoned the Greek mythology angle, eh? And after it gave you
should a good laugh too). Oh well--on to something new in the next
post, I suppose.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
ProdInAHat
184733.news.dfncis.de:
>
> (Kind of abandoned the Greek mythology angle, eh? And after it gave you
> should a good laugh too). Oh well--on to something new in the next
> post, I suppose.
>
>
As Sean O'Hara has already explained, The Three Moerae are represented by
the Three Marys and to an extent the Holy Trinity itself.
You obviously think that Christianity rose anew like a Phoenix from the
ashes of old Rome--simply not the case.
Ramsay MacMullen has given the most eloquent and learned wake-up call on
the subject. To paraphrase: "In the opening century or two of their
existence as a religious community, Christians lacked a distinctive poetry,
rhetoric, drama, architecture, painting, sculpture, music, or dance--all,
arts serving the older faith richly...They had almost no special language
of gestures or symbols in which to express their feelings or their wishes
to, or regarding, the divine, such as pagans had developed; nor were they
sure how to conceive or address most superhuman powers acknowledged in
their world: the souls of their dead, heroes or holy men, angels or
prophets, Abrasax or Solomon.........The grand event which I have tried to
describe did not and could not conclude in any sort of a total eclipse or
displacement of the past. The triumph of the church was one not of
obliteration but of widening embrace and assimilation."
ProdInAHat
184733.news.dfncis.de:
>
> I love the qualifiers. You say, Jesus *may* have actually existed in
> the flesh. There is far more evidence that Jesus existed in the flesh,
> than there is for many historical characters that I'm sure you take for
> granted.
the Titulus Cruces looks like being pretty convincing evidence of this,
although it remains to be seen. Wish they would allow carobon dating--
fascinating.
geoff alexander
> nmstevens wrote:
> >
> >>Sean wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article "Re: HARRY POTTER'S MAGIC BANNED BY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL"
> >>>Paulo Joe Jingy wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>What about "The Lord of the Rings?" Written by a Catholic, who actually
> >>>>had enough intelligence to tell the difference between myth and religion.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Would you care to say more about the difference?
> >>>
> >>>To me they're the same, except that "myth" is someone else's
> >>>religion.
> >>
> >>I could be wrong (I hope I'm not)--but I don't think anyone worships the
> >>mythological creatures that J.R.R. Tolkien invented for "The Lord of the
> >>Rings".
> >>
> >>As a Catholic, J.R.R Tolkien worshiped God. He didn't confuse God with
> >>the creatures he invented.
> >>
> >>fictional character) and "Jesus Christ" (a historical fact).
> >>
> >>Paulo Joe Jingy
> >
> >
> >
> > Clearly, there are works of fiction like Lord of the Rings, or Star
> > Wars that were invented in imitation of actual myths and, as you say,
> > hopefully, nobody mistakes those fictional faux myths for anything
> > other than what they are.
> >
> > But clearly, what Tolkien was attempting to do was to create what he
> > felt that Britain lacked -- which was its own indigineous homegrown
> > mythology, as distinct from, say, Arthurian myth cycles, which he felt
> > were bastardized non-home grown legends brought in by way of the
> > Norman conquests.
> >
> > Even so, of course -- it would still never be more than simply a work
> > of fiction.
> >
> > Genuine mythology, as the original poster stated, must stand, I fear,
> > much closer to religion than you might like. Where do Zeus and Athena
> > or Thor and Loki or Amon Ra figure as between religion and myth? At
> > one point they stood as firmly in the minds of their believers as
> > "historical facts" as you now assert Jesus Christ to be.
>
> I realize that you don't believe Jesus Christ is God. But are you also
> suggesting that Jesus Christ is *not* a historical fact? Are you
> asserting that a *man* known as Jesus of Nazareth *never* walked the
> earth?
>
> Christianity (at least most of them) have admitted that much, over the
> last 2000 years.
>
> > What is it precisely that makes a woman impregnated by Zeus merely a
> > myth whilst a woman impregnated by Jehovah rises somehow to the level
> > of "historical fact" -- other than a head count of current believers?
>
> Precisely because one is a myth and the other is a fact. Saying (or
> proving) one is false, doesn't automatically make the other false.
> There can be true and false religions. It's not a logical premise to
> state that since one religious belief has been proven false, then
> another (or all other) religious beliefs are also false.
Which religion has been proven false?
G
geoff alexander
I feel sorry for you, Paulo. Your need to constanly discuss your
religion speaks to a terrible spiritual doubt. The sad fact is, you
will never lead the kind of spiritual life which I enjoy. It makes me
very sad indeed that you're doomed while I am saved, that you will
never know true peace as I know it. I wish I could help you open your
heart to the truth. In fact, next time I go to my church, I'll think
of you.
G
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:bed4qc$3q625$1@ID-
> 184733.news.dfncis.de:
>
>
>>(Kind of abandoned the Greek mythology angle, eh? And after it gave you
>>should a good laugh too). Oh well--on to something new in the next
>>post, I suppose.
>>
>>
>
>
> As Sean O'Hara has already explained, The Three Moerae are represented by
> the Three Marys and to an extent the Holy Trinity itself.
And as I explained--that's one hell of a stretch. But it shows
imagination. It is no where near the realm of proven fact, you seem to
imagine it is.
> You obviously think that Christianity rose anew like a Phoenix from the
> ashes of old Rome--simply not the case.
You obviously don't know what I "obviously think".
> Ramsay MacMullen has given the most eloquent and learned wake-up call on
> the subject. To paraphrase: "In the opening century or two of their
> existence as a religious community, Christians lacked a distinctive poetry,
> rhetoric, drama, architecture, painting, sculpture, music, or dance--all,
> arts serving the older faith richly...They had almost no special language
> of gestures or symbols in which to express their feelings or their wishes
> to, or regarding, the divine, such as pagans had developed; nor were they
> sure how to conceive or address most superhuman powers acknowledged in
> their world: the souls of their dead, heroes or holy men, angels or
> prophets, Abrasax or Solomon.........The grand event which I have tried to
> describe did not and could not conclude in any sort of a total eclipse or
> displacement of the past. The triumph of the church was one not of
> obliteration but of widening embrace and assimilation."
With all due respect, the opinions of Ramsay MacMullen, don't mean shit
to me. In fact this is the first time I've heard of him, and it will
probably be the last time I ever hear of him.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
nmstevens
> nmstevens wrote:
> > Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<beb4hk$35aug$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>...
> >
> >>nmstevens wrote:
>
> >>At least one religion is based on fact and faith: Christianity. Fact:
> >> Jesus Christ lived, as a man on earth. Faith: Jesus is the Christ,
> >>the Son of the living God.
Okay -- I actually wrote a rather lengthy reply which I then
inadvertently obliterated it, so I don't know to what extent I'll
have the patience to recapitulate it but what the heck.
Two different entitities which you seem to use interchangeably and
which, I fear, tends to confuse the issue.
You say, "Jesus Christ lived -- as a man."
Faith -- Jesus is the Christ."
But those are two very different things.
Jesus as man and Jesus as Christ.
First statement -- Jesus of Nazareth lived sometime in the first
century -- the evidence is, while far from certain in support of this
claim, it's more likely true than not that this is correct.
Second statement -- Jesus, son of God, born of a woman impregnated by
God etc., etc., etc., -- is not, so far as I can see, even a
statement that can be meaningfully addressed in historical terms. It
can only be addressed as a matter of divine revelation and thus of
religious faith.
I'm sorry that you don't like qualifiers, because when you enter the
realms of history, you're stuck with them. That's what you're always
dealing with in any area when you deal with matters of testimony and
hearsay and circumstantial and archeological evidence. Ultimately, the
most that you can say is that the supporting evidence for a conclusion
is so strong that to reject it would simply be perverse. That's when
you start calling things "facts" -- but really they're simply very
strong conclusions. And sometimes such "facts" have the unfortunate
tendency to abruptly undergo sea changes in the face of new evidence,
either pro or con. It used to be a "fact" that Troy was just a myth,
no less than the Island of the Cyclops or Asgard -- until they found
it.
Now it's existence is no less a "fact" that its non-existence used to
be.
And given the nature of historical evidence, there are many areas
where our conclusions are necessarily, and perhaps permanently
uncertain. Did Nero burn down Rome? Some evidence pro, other evidence
con. The reality is -- the issue may never truly be resolved.
Likewise as we move back through history we tend to pass inevitably
into this realm of half-history half-mythology. The History of the
Kings of England goes all the way back to Arthur -- who, though he may
have had some origin in early tribal Britain, was, as the myth was
codified in Morte d'Arthur and other works, is almost entirely untrue.
But there it is, incorporated in a work of History.
Even in things like the works of Suetonius, he reports along with the
various works, both good and bad of the early emperors of Rome, with
no irony whatsoever, the supernatural "omens" that foretold their
comings and goings.
How then are historians to deal with such materials? What criteria are
they to use when confronted with these ancient works? Clearly, some
things in them are likely to be quite accurate, others things utterly
imaginary, and other things somewhere in between, with no definitive
way to sort them out. Ultimately, historians, in analyzing ancient
works, can never do more than rate such material as being more or less
likely to be true and essentially leave it at that, barring some new
evidence or new basis for analysis.
Qualifiers, unfortunately, are the name of the game. Unqualified
Facts, as such, are often few and far between.
> >>
>
> > Well, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, bare the same relationship to history as
> > characters like Arthur, Moses, and Robin Hood. That is, while they
> > *may* have had actual, physical historical precursors in the flesh -
>
> I love the qualifiers. You say, Jesus *may* have actually existed in
> the flesh. There is far more evidence that Jesus existed in the flesh,
> than there is for many historical characters that I'm sure you take for
> granted.
>
> > who those real life people may have been we really know virtually
> > nothing about -- the real historical kernels have been so subsumed in
> > (pardon the expression) mythology that our ability to make any
> > reliable historical statements about them at all -- in the sense that
> > we can make such statements about, say, the latter Biblical Kings, is
> > very limited.
>
> Why do you say that? People had invented writing long before Jesus
> Christ existed. Are you suggesting that they were unable to record
> history, at the time of Jesus? As I said before--even the enemies of
> Christianity have admitted the existence of Jesus Christ for over 2000
> years.
Well, so far as I know -- nobody did. That is, so far as I know, he
wrote nothing down. No first hand witness of anything that he said,
wrote anything down. So far as I know, the earliest writings of the
New Testament appear generations after the last person who might ever
have laid eyes on him was long dead. Am I mistaken in this?
In any case -- Jesus in what sense? The Jesus that was a carpenter?
The Jesus that was born of a virgin mother impregnated by God? The
Jesus that was visited by three wise men guided by a star that no one
else on earth seemed to notice or report having seen? The Jesus that
overturned the carts by the temple? That preached the sermon on the
mount? That walked on water? That raised the dead? That, himself, died
and came back from the dead?
Where then, do we draw the line between the so called "historical"
Jesus -- Jesus the man and Jesus the Christ -- Jesus the son of God,
Jesus in whom you believe not based upon historical evidence but as a
matter of religious revelation.
It raises and interesting point because Thomas Jefferson did exactly
that -- he went through the New Testament and literally cut out
everything that he considered to be "illegitimate" -- by which, in his
mind, meant anything that was in any sense supernatural. In his
opinion, Jesus was completely human, a philosopher and a rebel - he
didn't buy any of that "son of God" stuff -- and he created his own
version of the New Testatment to reflect that sense of what he
considered the "real" Bible to be. He believed that all of that other
stuff had been added in later and that he was essentially bringing the
Bible back to the original version -- bringing Jesus back to the
original man that he had actually been.
>
> ---snip---
>
> > The two must stand as fundamentally different things. Your faith,
> > however substantial, is not built on "historical facts." Those facts,
> > in truth, are about as substantial as the facts that support the
> > historical existence of Roland, Robin Hood, and Agammemnon.
>
> In your opinion. You'll notice, in my original message I very carefully
> described Jesus Christ "as a historical fact". I very carefully avoided
> calling him God, or the Son of God. I didn't mention faith, at that
> time. The fact that you have trouble even admitting that Jesus "walked
> in the flesh" shows more about your views of religion, than your grasp
> of "historical fact".
Well -- a problem in terminology. You cannot refer to him as "Jesus
Christ" without, in fact, referring to him as a Deity -- that what the
"christ" part means.
I think that it is more likely than not that Jesus had some historical
counterpart -- but to what extent that counterpart resembles that
person described in the Bible is, I believe, simply impossible ever to
determine. What he actually did, what he actually said, how he
actually lived -- so much of his life had gone through so much editing
and retelling and processing during the years it moved from being a
life lived on earth to becoming a faith fought over, argued over, and
ultimated crytallized into a particular form, that I cannot imagine
how we could ever (short of discovering some literally untainted
contemporary account -- which I doubt we ever will) come close to
determining with any degree of reliability, just what the contemporary
life of Jesus was actually like. Of any particular thing you might say
-- sure, maybe he did overturn the carts in temple. Maybe he did
deliver the sermon on the mount. Maybe he did. Maybe he did have those
disciples -- or maybe not.
The nature of the evidence is simply intrinsically uncertain. And the
certainty of your faith makes no impression upon the inherent
uncertainty of the evidence.
>
> > Which is not to say that those men did *not* exist -- but historical
> > *facts?* -- that's putting the case a wee bit too strongly.
>
> Once again--here's what I said in my original message.
>
> "And there's a world of difference between "Gandalf the Grey" (a
> fictional character) and "Jesus Christ" (a historical fact)."
>
> I was very specific. I limited my discussion to the fact that unlike
> "Gandalf the Grey", "Jesus Christ" really existed. Historical evidence
> supports me, on this.
But again "existed" in what sense -- to what extent? Existed as a man
who was a carpenter, as a man who preached against the corruption of
his times, as someone who claimed to be the messiah and was crucified
-- or as someone was literally god come down to earth to redeem the
human race?
As "historical facts" -- these fall into rather very distinct and
different claims.
>
> > But from the perspective of religous faith -- what difference does it
> > make? It's not based on the evidence anyway.
>
> It can be. This evidence is called miracles. Miracles are supernatural
> (above nature). They can't be explained by natural causes. But they
> have been witnessed and documented. And in many cases they have been
> witnessed and documented by *secular* and skeptical men and women.
> People not inclined to believe in the supernatural.
>
> But you are right that my religion is based on faith. If people refuse
> to believe, they'll refuse to believe miracles, too. I believe in Jesus
> Christ, by faith. You believe that he didn't exist (or at least isn't
> God), by faith.
Yes, you believe that that thread will hold your weight by faith --
and I believe that it won't -- by faith. Right. Both just exactly the
same.
But what you pose above raises a real question that historians, and
especially religious historians, I believe, have to contend with.
Inevitably, in attempting to curry truth out of ancient documents, to
distinguish things that are likely to be true, likely to be false, and
somewhere in the middle, historians inevitably apply certain basic
criteria to any ancient text. Some things that are, for instance,
strongly supported by, say, many other contemporaneous documents
already known, by archeological evidence already in existence -- those
things are likely to be judged as true (at least as far as you can).
So, for instance, descriptions of chariots in the Illiad match what we
see on countless paintings on pottery and carvings we've discovered in
archeological sites -- so it's a pretty good bet that their chariots
did, in fact look pretty much as they were described. On the other
hand, accounts of things that are simply impossible and magical --
things like Cyclops and Laestrygonians and Athena stopping the sun
from rising so that Odysseus can have an extra long shag with Penelope
-- those things historians classify -- because they know that
impossible things can't happen -- as not true -- and they go on the
scrap heap. Then they have other things in between. Maybe the Greeks
did or didn't lay seige to Troy -- right now there's no real way to be
sure.
Well -- that seems like a very reasonable approach for an historian to
to take with any ancient text -- works perfectly well with the Illiad
-- with Morte d'Arthur, with Gilgamesh -- and as far I'm concerned, it
would work equally well with the Bible. Moses parting the Red sea goes
on the same scrap heap with Pharoah's magician parting the Nile so
that the Pharoah's wife can recover a lost broach. God impregnating
Mary goes on the same scrap heap as Zeus impregnating all the women he
was supposed to have impregnated.
In other words, when you approach the Bible as an historical text, you
treat it in precisely the same way as you would treat any other
historical document -- it receives no special treatment. That means
that you exclude from serious consideration, all of the patently
impossible supernatural junk that you would, in the normal course of
events exclude from seriously considering were it any other ancient
text.
Were one to do otherwise, would it not inevitably constitute a double
standard -- essentially saying, "Well, we're going to treat this book
differently, because we know a priori, that this one is true, as
distinct from all those other books, that we already know are false."
Says who?
>
> > If it was, you'd reject it -- just the way you reject Zeus, and
> > Athena, and Thor and all those other gods, because the available
> > evidence tells you that they are simply absurd.
>
> I reject Zeus, Athena and Thor. I don't reject that there is still a
> false religion, called "Odinism". Or that some people still worship
> Zeus and Athena. The numbers may be small, but they are still there.
So far as I can tell, you must necessarily conclude that all religions
save one are false.
I agree with you -- I just happen to think that one additional
religion is also false.
Oh -- and are absolutely sure that that's "Odinism" and not "Onanism"
?
NMS
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Which religion has been proven false?
For one--the religion of "Paulo Joe Jingy is Yer Good Buddy and Savior"
It was proven absolutely false just two months ago.
Damn--Geoff, you need to keep up.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Paulo Joe Jingy
> I feel sorry for you, Paulo. Your need to constanly discuss your
> religion speaks to a terrible spiritual doubt. The sad fact is, you
> will never lead the kind of spiritual life which I enjoy. It makes me
> very sad indeed that you're doomed while I am saved, that you will
> never know true peace as I know it. I wish I could help you open your
> heart to the truth. In fact, next time I go to my church, I'll think
> of you.
Thanks Geoff.
I feel so special.
"Sean" started the thread, directed at me, but you don't seem to care
for him.
"LDL" contributed, but you don't care for him, either.
"Ian McFadyen", "D C", "nmstevens", "Walter Geist", yourself,
"ProdInAHat", "RonB", "Alan Brooks" (his message was a joke--no, I mean
an actual joke), "Dr. Jai Maharaj" and "Snoopy" are also left out in the
cold by your lack of concern.
Let's see if we can figure this out. One person addresses a message
directly to me. I respond. Other people address messages to me, I
respond.
I don't know, Geoff, do you think that the so-called "spiritual doubt"
just might reside in the person who *started* the thread and in those
people who continue to address me and maybe (just maybe) not in myself,
(especially when you consider that I'm only reacting to what other
people are saying to me?) Do you think that *they* are the ones who
need to "constantly discuss" their views?
What about it, Geoff--is that a possibility? Hmmmm?
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
-----
SEAN
Your mother wears army boots!
PAULO
No she doesn't.
GEOFF
I feel sorry for you, Paulo. Your need to constantly discuss your
mother speaks to a terrible maternal doubt.
Walter Geist
> Walter Geist wrote:
> > Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<beb4hk$35aug$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>...
> >
> >>If you are--I don't know how much history you will accept, because Jesus
> >>Christ is clearly a "historical fact".
> > Islam and Christianity are based on "fact".
>
> You missed half of what I said. "Christianity is fact and *faith*".
So is Islam. So are a bunch of religions. Stop trying to make
Christianity "special" just because it has a historical figure in it.
Christianity flys in the face of far more facts anyway. Like the age
of the Earth for example.
> Many (or all) religions are based on *some* facts. The fact that the
> sun exists, doesn't also make it a fact that it's hauled across the sky
> in a chariot.
Exactly, so whats your point about Jesus being a "fact"?
> > Here's another "fact" for you, the bible (whatever version you happen
> > to read) has been altered tremendously since it was originally
> > written.
>
> Would you like to give some particulars? Or is that a statement of faith?
According to the dead sea scrolls Mary is described as a "young
woman", not a "virgin". It wasn't until the bible was translated into
Greek that Mary started to be called a virgin. The greeks already had
a tradition of virgin-births in their mythology, so this was a natural
modicifcation for them to make.
RonB
> According to the dead sea scrolls Mary is described as a "young
> woman", not a "virgin". It wasn't until the bible was translated into
> Greek that Mary started to be called a virgin. The greeks already had
> a tradition of virgin-births in their mythology, so this was a natural
> modicifcation for them to make.
In the Gospels, the Virgin Mary asked the angel -- "How can this be, as I
have not *known* man?" It's immaterial whether the the Gospel writers used
"young woman" (and inferred a virgin by doing so) or actually wrote "young
virgin." The meaning is plain in the context -- and it did not need Greek
mythology for further clarification. The virgin birth is not an invention
borrowed from Greek mythology, it is an intregal part of the Gospels.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Lars J. Aas
geoff alexander <geoffale...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I feel sorry for you, Paulo. Your need to constanly discuss your
> religion speaks to a terrible spiritual doubt.
"Doubt is part of all religion. All the religious thinkers were
doubters."
-- Isaac Bashevis Singer
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there
be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of
blind-folded fear."
-- Thomas Jefferson
> The sad fact is, you
> will never lead the kind of spiritual life which I enjoy.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
"There were honest people long before there were Christians and
there are, God be praised, still honest people where there are no
Christians. It could therefore easily be possible that people are
Christians because true Christianity corresponds to what they would
have been even if Christianity did not exist."
-- Georg C. Lichtenberg
> It makes me
> very sad indeed that you're doomed while I am saved, that you will
> never know true peace as I know it.
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image
when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
-- Anne Lamott
Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?"
Priest: "No, not if you did not know."
Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"
-- Annie Dillard
"The whole point of Christianity is that everyone in the world, from
Charles Manson to Mother Teresa, deserves to go to hell."
-- Sean Ningen
> I wish I could help you open your
> heart to the truth. In fact, next time I go to my church, I'll think
> of you.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightening rod on top shows a
lack of confidence."
-- Doug McLeod
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-- Stephen Roberts
http://www.brainyquotes.com/
Lars J
--
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away. -- PKD
Alan Brooks
> "Sean" started the thread, directed at me, but you don't seem to care
> for him.
>
> "LDL" contributed, but you don't care for him, either.
>
> "Ian McFadyen", "D C", "nmstevens", "Walter Geist", yourself,
> "ProdInAHat", "RonB", "Alan Brooks" (his message was a joke--no, I mean
> an actual joke), "Dr. Jai Maharaj" and "Snoopy" are also left out in the
> cold by your lack of concern.
Actually, the purpose of my joke was to trim all the other newsgroups from
the previous post. Just doing my bit for Truth, Justice and The 'Merkin
Way.
I've tried to avoid all the religious threads since the last time I got into
it, lo these many moons ago. It's the same with political arguments -- you
never change anybody's mind, and it brings out the worst in everyone
involved, especially on usenet where even the slow-of-wit have time to craft
a response.
I come from a very VERY religious background -- a highly evangelical
Lutheran mob. I am now an atheist, but I retain a few core beliefs from my
20 years of total immersion in the religious soup:
1. Martin Luther had it right: The Just shall live by faith. As soon as you
fall back on "evidence" of Jesus' having lived, you've moved into the realm
of rationalism, and weakened your stance. Me, I've decided to live in a
completely rationalist world. But if you want to belive in an
anthropomorphic god you'll have to believe in spite of a lack of any real
evidence. The forward progress of time becomes a test of your faith. The
evidence that Jesus really lived is much older, and therefore weaker, than
the evidence that we landed on the moon. And yet there are people for whom
the moon landing evidence is not strong enough, and who even find "evidence"
that it didn't happen. The standard for what is "evident" continues to
plummet.
2. Show, don't tell. That is the Hollywood equivalent of "ye shall know
them by their works".
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- Blessed are those who have seen
and yet don't believe, for they
entertain us all mightily.
new...@virtual.com
>Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away. -- PKD
OR...
Reality is the moment you accept the moment...
Doug
---
"Renaissance Schmenaissance, this is a mid-life crisis."
- Brick Rage
Paulo Joe Jingy
> "Paulo Joe Jingy" wrote:
>
>
>>"Sean" started the thread, directed at me, but you don't seem to care
>>for him.
>>
>>"LDL" contributed, but you don't care for him, either.
>>
>>"Ian McFadyen", "D C", "nmstevens", "Walter Geist", yourself,
>>"ProdInAHat", "RonB", "Alan Brooks" (his message was a joke--no, I mean
>>an actual joke), "Dr. Jai Maharaj" and "Snoopy" are also left out in the
>>cold by your lack of concern.
>
>
> Actually, the purpose of my joke was to trim all the other newsgroups from
> the previous post. Just doing my bit for Truth, Justice and The 'Merkin
> Way.
There you go. Thanks for trying.
> I've tried to avoid all the religious threads since the last time I got into
> it, lo these many moons ago. It's the same with political arguments -- you
> never change anybody's mind, and it brings out the worst in everyone
> involved, especially on usenet where even the slow-of-wit have time to craft
> a response.
Yep.
> I come from a very VERY religious background -- a highly evangelical
> Lutheran mob. I am now an atheist, but I retain a few core beliefs from my
> 20 years of total immersion in the religious soup:
>
> 1. Martin Luther had it right: The Just shall live by faith. As soon as you
> fall back on "evidence" of Jesus' having lived, you've moved into the realm
> of rationalism, and weakened your stance.
Come again? The whole *point* of Jesus Christ is the Incarnation.
Without that, there is no Christianity.
> Me, I've decided to live in a
> completely rationalist world. But if you want to belive in an
> anthropomorphic god you'll have to believe in spite of a lack of any real
> evidence.
There's that "no evidence" thing again. We have evidence--they're
called miracles. Evidence of what? If not God, specifically, it is of
something above a natural explanation (supernatural). The problem is
people refuse to believe--sometimes even when they witness a miracle.
They convince themselves that there has to be a *rational* explanation.
And as I said before, miracles have been witnessed and documented by
people who weren't/aren't inclined to believe in God, but who are/were
honest enough to document them, anyway.
Would I be a Catholic without the evidence of miracles? Yes. I believe
by faith. But that doesn't mean that there is *no* evidence.
> The forward progress of time becomes a test of your faith. The
> evidence that Jesus really lived is much older, and therefore weaker, than
> the evidence that we landed on the moon. And yet there are people for whom
> the moon landing evidence is not strong enough, and who even find "evidence"
> that it didn't happen. The standard for what is "evident" continues to
> plummet.
You're serious? You mean eventually I won't have existed? It's just a
matter of time? I think that there is still *pretty good* evidence that
Jesus existed, even now, in the year of our Lord, A.D. 2003.
-----
You're right--there is no point in continuing this discussion.
You may not believe it--but I actually *tried* to avoid this discussion.
I intentionally labeled Jesus Christ, a "historical fact" (in
comparison to Gandalf the Grey--a fictional character), *without*
mentioning anything about Him being God. Looking back on it--I guess I
should have said "Jesus of Nazareth" and left *Christ* off of it (just a
habit), in the context of what I was *trying to say*. I'm surprised
that anyone would question the "historical fact" that Jesus *of
Nazareth* walked the earth as a man--after all, that *is* a "historical
fact" (if "historical facts" exist, and I believe they do).
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bec5sr$3drhg$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>>Walter Geist wrote:
>>
>>>Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<beb4hk$35aug$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you are--I don't know how much history you will accept, because Jesus
>>>>Christ is clearly a "historical fact".
>>>
>>>Jesus is also a prophet in Islam. So, according to your theory, both
>>>Islam and Christianity are based on "fact".
>>
>>You missed half of what I said. "Christianity is fact and *faith*".
>
>
> So is Islam. So are a bunch of religions.
Did I say otherwise?
> Stop trying to make
> Christianity "special" just because it has a historical figure in it.
You got that dead wrong. Christianity is something special. The fact
that it has a "historical figure(s) in it" is just reality. People
don't have to admit that Jesus is God--but (honest) people have to admit
that Jesus is a "historical fact".
> Christianity flys in the face of far more facts anyway. Like the age
> of the Earth for example.
What is the age of the earth? And what is the age (that you claim) that
Christians say it is? (As if *all* Christians agree on this).
>>Many (or all) religions are based on *some* facts. The fact that the
>>sun exists, doesn't also make it a fact that it's hauled across the sky
>>in a chariot.
>
>
> Exactly, so whats your point about Jesus being a "fact"?
The point has been lost. You probably missed it. You are admitting my
*original* point. Jesus is a "historical fact". That's it--that was my
point. End of story. Below, is what I originally said in this thread.
Pay attention. I think you'll agree with it.
-----
I could be wrong (I hope I'm not)--but I don't think anyone worships the
mythological creatures that J.R.R. Tolkien invented for "The Lord of the
Rings".
As a Catholic, J.R.R Tolkien worshiped God. He didn't confuse God with
the creatures he invented.
And there's a world of difference between "Gandalf the Grey" (a
fictional character) and "Jesus Christ" (a historical fact).
-----
That's all I said. That's it. Is there anything you have a problem
with, there?
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
WRabkin
>called miracles
What miracles are you talking about precisely? The Virgin showing up in a
tortilla in Mexico? George W. Bush being appointed to the White House? Or do
you mean the ones "documented" in the Bible. If the latter, then:
>And as I said before, miracles have been witnessed and documented by
>people who weren't/aren't inclined to believe in God, but who are/were
>honest enough to document them, anyway.
If the documentation you're talking about is in the Bible, then by definition,
you're talking about a work written by believers. What other miracles did you
have in mind?
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<bec3m7$3gq2l$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>...
>
>>nmstevens wrote:
>>
>>>Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<beb4hk$35aug$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>>nmstevens wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>At least one religion is based on fact and faith: Christianity. Fact:
>>>> Jesus Christ lived, as a man on earth. Faith: Jesus is the Christ,
>>>>the Son of the living God.
>
>
> Okay -- I actually wrote a rather lengthy reply which I then
> inadvertently obliterated it,
I hate it when that happens.
> so I don't know to what extent I'll
> have the patience to recapitulate it but what the heck.
>
> Two different entitities which you seem to use interchangeably and
> which, I fear, tends to confuse the issue.
>
> You say, "Jesus Christ lived -- as a man."
>
> Faith -- Jesus is the Christ."
>
> But those are two very different things.
>
> Jesus as man and Jesus as Christ.
Yeah, I know that, from where you quote it, it was intentional. I was
trying to make a point.
The problem is in my first message I called *Jesus Christ* a historical
fact. It just dawned on me, today, that I had done that. That was not
my intention and I should have said "Jesus of Nazareth" or something
similar to that. The whole point was that unlike a fictional character
(like Gandalf the Grey), Jesus *of Nazareth*, actually existed (a
historical fact). I intentionally tried to avoid any reference to the
divinity of Jesus. (Obviously, by using the word *Christ*, I screwed
that up).
> First statement -- Jesus of Nazareth lived sometime in the first
> century -- the evidence is, while far from certain in support of this
> claim, it's more likely true than not that this is correct.
>
> Second statement -- Jesus, son of God, born of a woman impregnated by
> God etc., etc., etc., -- is not, so far as I can see, even a
> statement that can be meaningfully addressed in historical terms. It
> can only be addressed as a matter of divine revelation and thus of
> religious faith.
Yep--once again, I screwed up by referring to *Jesus Christ* as a
historical fact. I mixed oranges and apples.
> I'm sorry that you don't like qualifiers,
I don't have anything against qualifiers--especially now that I figured
out what I did wrong, in this discussion.
> because when you enter the
> realms of history, you're stuck with them. That's what you're always
> dealing with in any area when you deal with matters of testimony and
> hearsay and circumstantial and archeological evidence. Ultimately, the
> most that you can say is that the supporting evidence for a conclusion
> is so strong that to reject it would simply be perverse. That's when
> you start calling things "facts" -- but really they're simply very
> strong conclusions. And sometimes such "facts" have the unfortunate
> tendency to abruptly undergo sea changes in the face of new evidence,
> either pro or con. It used to be a "fact" that Troy was just a myth,
> no less than the Island of the Cyclops or Asgard -- until they found
> it.
>
> Now it's existence is no less a "fact" that its non-existence used to
> be.
>
> And given the nature of historical evidence, there are many areas
> where our conclusions are necessarily, and perhaps permanently
> uncertain. Did Nero burn down Rome? Some evidence pro, other evidence
> con. The reality is -- the issue may never truly be resolved.
>
> Likewise as we move back through history we tend to pass inevitably
> into this realm of half-history half-mythology. The History of the
> Kings of England goes all the way back to Arthur -- who, though he may
> have had some origin in early tribal Britain, was, as the myth was
> codified in Morte d'Arthur and other works, is almost entirely untrue.
> But there it is, incorporated in a work of History.
Chesterton calls the tales of Arthur--"Christian Myths". I get your
point.
Two of the writers of the gospels were apostles of Jesus: Matthew
(wrote his gospel, between 60 and 80 AD) and John (wrote his gospel
around 95AD). Mark, a disciple of the apostle Peter, wrote his gospel
in 60AD. Luke, who was converted and was a companion of Paul, wrote his
gospel in 65AD.
Some of the other Apostles wrote there own gospels, which weren't
included in the canon of the bible, but are still considered to have
value, as historical texts.
Obviously not as "carefully" as I should have.
> Well -- a problem in terminology. You cannot refer to him as "Jesus
> Christ" without, in fact, referring to him as a Deity -- that what the
> "christ" part means.
Yep. Sorry about that.
Thanks. It's amazing how many *religious* people can't seem to grasp
that reality.
> I agree with you -- I just happen to think that one additional
> religion is also false.
I understand that. Once again, I tried to avoid this whole discussion.
I screwed up when I called *Jesus Christ* a "historical fact". Since
that wasn't my intent I'll be more careful in the future. I knew your
views of religion, before I posted. And I knew that we weren't going to
change each others beliefs.
> Oh -- and are absolutely sure that that's "Odinism" and not "Onanism"
Yeah--some one sicced one on my brother, probably over twenty years ago.
He was from San Diego and called himself the mouthpiece of god, or
something like that. (He was definitely into Thor and Odin and that
whole bunch). They wrote letters back and forth for awhile and then the
Odinist finally accused my brother of winning through "intimidation". I
didn't realize you could intimidate the "mouthpiece of god".
-----
I apologize for the problems I caused, by referring to *Jesus Christ* as
a "historical fact". (And I'm surprised it took me two days to catch
the mistake). It is not what I intended to say.
Of course, since I believe that Jesus is the Christ, I believe that He
is a "fact", historical and otherwise. (Faith). But I also realize
that many (if not most) of the people on this newsgroup don't believe
that Jesus is God and now that I see my screw-up I can understand what
many of you were rejecting and/or opposing.
Now, unless something new or different gets started or stated, I'm going
to shut down my posts on this thread.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
D C
----------
In article <beffdv$4iidf$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>, Paulo Joe Jingy
<pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 1. Martin Luther had it right: The Just shall live by faith. As soon as
> you
>> fall back on "evidence" of Jesus' having lived, you've moved into the realm
>> of rationalism, and weakened your stance.
>
> Come again? The whole *point* of Jesus Christ is the Incarnation.
> Without that, there is no Christianity.
>
>> Me, I've decided to live in a
>> completely rationalist world. But if you want to belive in an
>> anthropomorphic god you'll have to believe in spite of a lack of any real
>> evidence.
>
> There's that "no evidence" thing again. We have evidence--they're
> called miracles. Evidence of what? If not God, specifically, it is of
> something above a natural explanation (supernatural). The problem is
> people refuse to believe--sometimes even when they witness a miracle.
> They convince themselves that there has to be a *rational* explanation.
> And as I said before, miracles have been witnessed and documented by
> people who weren't/aren't inclined to believe in God, but who are/were
> honest enough to document them, anyway.
>
Dale Alan Brookes has a head full of shit. I wouldn't rely on him
for the time of day, even when he was on his meds.
D C
----------
In article <20030708184755...@mb-m14.aol.com>,
wra...@aol.com (WRabkin) wrote:
Look, 'miracles' have been validated by no end of scientific research.
Easy example for you, the independent vetting committee the Catholics
have.
If you want to be a rent-a-skeptic come into my parlour Bill.
D C
----------
In article <bedr68$3vp70$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>, Paulo Joe Jingy
<pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Geoff and NMS have heads full of shit - barely worth the time.
D C
----------
In article <2bf6ff6b.03070...@posting.google.com>,
geoffale...@hotmail.com (geoff alexander) wrote:
The sly nonchalance appears again. Paulo accepts his faith sincerely,
and I a powerfully sure he only discusses that faith in general
interest.
You are an inveterate liar and craphead, and if that is peace, well,
good luck. And you need it.
WRabkin
So... name three. Validated by scientific research. Please.
Alan Brooks
Alan Brooks wrote:
> > Me, I've decided to live in a completely rationalist world.
> > But if you want to belive in an anthropomorphic god you'll
> > have to believe in spite of a lack of any real evidence.
>
> There's that "no evidence" thing again. We have evidence--they're
> called miracles. Evidence of what? If not God, specifically, it is of
> something above a natural explanation (supernatural). The problem is
> people refuse to believe--sometimes even when they witness a miracle.
> They convince themselves that there has to be a *rational* explanation.
> And as I said before, miracles have been witnessed and documented by
> people who weren't/aren't inclined to believe in God, but who are/were
> honest enough to document them, anyway.
It comes down to what you want to believe. I've never witnessed anything
I'd label a miracle, and I don't know anybody else who has. On the other
hand I can't picture the event that would lead me to label something a
miracle without trying on a thousand rational, non-miraculous explanations
first. So I'd have to admit I'm predisposed to cynicism on the miracle
front.
Trying to put myself back into a state of believing in god again, I'd have
to ask myself, if the primary tenent of Christianity is faith, why would god
perform an obvious miracle and provide the firm evidence of his existence
which would subvert the need for faith? Within the Christian cosmology I
don't understand why miracles would exist.
Then there's the evidence thing... if people in large numbers disagree on
the cause of some event, than that cause is not "evident".
Anyway, I'll read your reply if you bother with one, and I'll leave it at
that.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- Now, if the Red Sox win the World Series...
D C
----------
In article <20030708231120...@mb-m02.aol.com>,
wra...@aol.com (WRabkin) wrote:
>>Look, 'miracles' have been validated by no end of scientific research.
>
> So... name three. Validated by scientific research. Please.
Ok, an easy example if the Perth, Austrialia weeping Madonna, that has
withstood a battery of tests now from two universities.
The thing about you guys is that you ask for 'proof' - because you are
so damn rational, but if there is any proof offered,, on the sort of
terms we would think you would deem acceptable, it is dismissed.
Only natural, really.
geoff alexander
The thing is, you can only save one soul at a time. Most of the other
people which you mention aren't religious, and you are. I feel that
they're never going to have a shot at a spiritual life. You're open
to living a truly spiritual life because you're already religious, you
just believe in the wrong one. Therefore, I have a better chance of
helping you than those people whom you mention.
>
> What about it, Geoff--is that a possibility? Hmmmm?
Paulo, here is a fact; you have chosen the wrong religion. I can
attest to this with absolute certitude. Why can't you see that I'm
simply trying to help you?
>
> -----
> Paulo Joe Jingy
> -----
> SEAN
> Your mother wears army boots!
>
> PAULO
> No she doesn't.
>
> GEOFF
> I feel sorry for you, Paulo. Your need to constantly discuss your
> mother speaks to a terrible maternal doubt.
Funny! I'm glad you have a sense of humor about this - there's hope
yet!
Paulo Joe Jingy
Would a miracle witnessed by 70,000 people and reported in newspapers
around the world, be enough to convince you? A miracle witnessed by
Atheists and skeptics? A miracle that was predicted for months in
advance?
Probably not. I'm sure that many of the Atheists, at Fatima, in 1917,
tried to rationalize away what they saw. It's human nature. (And that
goes both ways).
A lack of belief in a miracle is not *always* the most logical position
to take. Often it's the least logical position to take. Often people
dig in, and will accept *any* (so-called) rational explanation, other
than a miracle. (Even really far-fetched (so-called) *rational*
explanations). Are there phony miracles? Yes, of course. But, at
least until recently, the Catholic Church has always been very careful
before declaring a miracle *genuine*. Do you know where the term
"devil's advocate" originates?
I'm sure this won't convince you. (Well--maybe I'm not absolutely
sure). But there is definitely evidence for miracles, whether you want
to believe it or not.
-----
http://www.mess-s-antonio.it/msahome/ing/riviste/rivest/a2000/Feb/Art/danced.htm
During the third apparition, on July 13, Lucia asked Our Lady for a
miracle. She said that nobody believed what they saw, and that some
priests had said that their visions were the work of the devil. She
wished for a miracle so that people would stop making fun of the three
children and believe in what had happened. The Lady replied: "In October
I will say who I am and what I want, and I will work a miracle which all
who are present will see."
"Then she opened her hands and the three children saw the ghastly vision
of Hell. The woman told them: "To save people's souls, God wants to
establish the devotion to my Immaculate Heart in the world. If they do
what I say, many will be saved and find peace. The war is about to end,
but if humanity does not stop offending God, there will come another,
more terrible war. When you see a night lit up by an unknown light, know
that that is the great sign that God will give you before punishing the
world for its crimes through war and hunger, and through the persecution
of the Church and the Holy Father. If my requests are heeded, Russia
will convert and there will be peace; if not, that country will spread
its errors around the world, bringing war and persecution against the
Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will suffer much,
many nations will be wiped out, but in the end, my Immaculate Heart will
triumph."
News of the apparitions had reached Lisbon, the Portuguese capital. The
political authorities were indignant. The newspapers wrote about a
'hoax' which would have to be discredited. The mayor of Vila Nova, who
had jurisdiction over the town of Fatima, felt this as a personal
affront. On the morning of 13 August, he decided to 'kidnap' the three
young prophets. On a spurious pretext, he brought them to the town hall,
and kept them there so that they could not keep their appointment with
the Lady. They had to undergo hours of interrogation and threats
intended to make them recant their affirmations, but the children would
not give in. After two days of being held in the town hall, on 15 August
they were taken home. On August 19, while they were pasturing the flock
in Valinhos, the Lady appeared to them and comforted them for all they
had suffered. She also reassured them that in October she would give a
Great Sign.
The political authorities practically declared war on the apparitions,
more so because many people had begun to take the declarations of the
three children seriously. Journalists had even begun to arrive from
abroad, spreading the news of the apparitions and the irritation that
the political authorities were demonstrating because of them. From
Lisbon, the order came to "put a definitive end to this comedy."
But by now the politicians were no longer in control of the situation.
Fatima was crowded with people who had arrived from all parts of the
country, and many others from abroad. Believers and those who were just
curious kept a close watch on the political authorities, whose every
move was reported by the press.
As September 13 approached, the number of pilgrims increased. When the
day itself arrived, a crowd of 25,000 people thronged Cova da Iria. On
that day, too, the Lady reminded the children to pray fervently, and
confirmed that she would give them a great sign the next month.
Lucia always told of what the Lady had said to her. News of the
forthcoming miracle swept around Europe. There was a great deal of
anticipation and curious interest. The Portuguese authorities
intensified their attacks, with the help of Church authorities. Priests
and bishops looked ahead with trepidation because, if no miracle were
forthcoming, the reputation of the Church in Portugal could suffer
irreparable damage. Many priests approached the three children, begging
them to retract all their claims. On 12 October, Lucia's mother said to
her daughter: "If tomorrow Our Lady doesn't perform a miracle, the
people are going to kill us."
On October 13, 1917, Cova da Iria was packed with people. There were
seventy thousand in all: devotees, the curious, those who didn't believe
in the apparitions, atheists, and many journalists and photographers.
It was an awful day. It was raining heavily, and the people, who had
begun gathering at the site of the apparitions since the early morning,
were soaked to the skin.
At precisely midday, the Lady arrived. She said to the three children:
"I am Our Lady of the Rosary. I want to ask you to build a chapel in my
honour. Continue to say the Rosary every day. The war is about to end."
Then, she opened her arms and turned her palms towards the cloud-filled
sky. At that instant, the clouds parted and the sun appeared, its rays
shining directly onto the hands of Our Lady. She began to rise towards
the sky, and the young prophets saw other heavenly characters - angels
and saints - appear from the breach in the clouds. They formed a crown
for Our Lady, rising towards the sun with her.
At a certain moment, Lucia turned to the crowd and shouted: "Look at the
sun!" People looked skywards and were struck by an amazing sight. As
reported in an article published by a Lisbon newspaper, O Secolo: "the
sun was like a disc of dull silver. One could look at it directly
without straining the eyes. It didn't burn and it didn't blind. Then it
began to jump and dance in the sky. It almost seemed as if it were about
to detach itself from its orbit and come hurtling down to earth. The
people were frightened and began to
shout and cry, desperately searching for some place to hide. Then the
sun stopped moving and returned to its normal position. At that moment
everyone realised that their clothes, which only a few minutes before
had been dripping wet, were now bone dry."
This event made a huge impression. All the newspapers reported the
story. Even the biggest cynics were struck by what had happened. The
event had been predicted months before by the children, and had been
witnessed by 70,000 people. What had happened could not have been the
fruit of suggestion or mass hysteria.
That October 13, 1917, was officially the last time that the three young
prophets would see 'the Lady in white'. But on that day, the real story
of Fatima began. The ecclesiastic authorities and faithful Christians
realised that perhaps those events deserved their attention. Many
studies were thus begun, many reflections made. There was great interest
in the messages of Our Lady, and the secrets she had confided to the
three young prophets. This interest is still very much alive, especially
with respect to what is known as the 'Third secret of Fatima'. Thousands
of guesses have been made as to the nature of this secret, but its true
content has not yet been revealed.
-----
For me to continue this thread is pointless. It no longer has anything
to do with my original post. (Which I have admitted I screwed-up, in at
least two other posts). My original point was *supposed to be* that
Gandalf the Grey is a fictional character and Jesus *of Nazareth* is a
historical character, in relation to myth. (But I unintentionally used
*Jesus Christ*, which is something completely different). I attempted
to carefully word it, to avoid this whole discussion, knowing what most
of the regulars here thought about religion, already.
People seem to like to talk about religion--even if they protest that
they don't. That's the only explanation I have for how far these
threads always seem to go, even on the flimsiest pretense.
It's pointless--not because the discussion of religion isn't important.
It's pointless because everyone's mind is already made up (and because
this is a screenplay writers newsgroup).
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
ProdInAHat
184733.news.dfncis.de:
> Would a miracle witnessed by 70,000 people and reported in newspapers
> around the world, be enough to convince you?
Mass-hysteria?
> But, at
> least until recently, the Catholic Church has always been very careful
> before declaring a miracle *genuine*. Do you know where the term
> "devil's advocate" originates?
>
Isn't that to do with the process of Beatification, rather than the
declaring of miracles? I could be wrong, but there's a subtle difference...
ProdInAHat
> I'm sure this won't convince you. (Well--maybe I'm not absolutely
> sure). But there is definitely evidence for miracles, whether you want
> to believe it or not.
When it comes to miracle healing though, like Lourdes etc, the chances are
it's all down to placebo effect.
There was a trial done some years ago on cancer patients. 100 patients were
told that they were taking chemotherapy, but instead were given an inactive
saline solution. Nonetheless, 20% still lost their hair.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:beg5e6$4p9d8$1@ID-
> 184733.news.dfncis.de:
>
>
>>I'm sure this won't convince you. (Well--maybe I'm not absolutely
>>sure). But there is definitely evidence for miracles, whether you want
>>to believe it or not.
>
>
> When it comes to miracle healing though, like Lourdes etc, the chances are
> it's all down to placebo effect.
Undoubtedly there is a "placebo effect" at Lourdes. But there are also
documented miraculous cures.
That's exactly why the Catholic Church has a process of authenticating
miraculous cures, at Lourdes.
-----
http://www.lourdes-france.org/gb/gbsb0027.htm
How is a claimed cure examined and supervised?
I-Medical Examination.
1 - THE CRITERIA FOR A CURE.
For the medical study to be able to find in favour of a cure to be
"certain, definitive and medically inexplicable" it must be established:
* that the fact and the diagnosis of the illness is first of all
established and correctly diagnosed;
* that the prognosis must be permanent or terminal in the short term;
* that the cure is immediate, without convalescence, complete and
lasting;
* that the prescribed treatment could not be attributed to the
cause of this cure or be an aid to it.
2 - THE EXAMINATION OF THE MEDICAL BUREAU OF LOURDES.
The sick who come to Lourdes with a pilgrimage group are accompanied by
a doctor who is furnished with a medical file describing their present
condition.
This file, normally explicit enough, forms the base to work from when a
pilgrim declares that they have been cured. The file and the pilgrim who
claims to have been cured are presented to the Medical Bureau, that is,
to the doctor who is permanently in Lourdes who will then gather
together the members of the medical profession present in Lourdes on
that day and who wish to participate in this examination.
No definite conclusion will be given at the end of this examination. The
person who claims to have been cured will be invited to meet the Medical
Commission the following year and/or for many subsequent years.
Finally, after many successful examinations the file of the cure will be
sent (if ¾ of the doctors present so wish) to the International Medical
Committee.
3 - THE EXAMINATION BY THE LOURDES INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL COMMITTEE. (CMIL)
This second level of enquiry exists since 1947. At first it was the
Lourdes National Medical Committee then it became the International
Committee in 1954.
The Committee is made up of thirty specialists, surgeons, professors or
Heads of Department‚ from different countries that meet once each year.
The current President is Professor Jean-Louis Armand-Laroche.
The International Medical Committee of Lourdes (CMIL) has a consultative
role.
It will allow an assessment to continue over several years in order to
observe the development of the patient before they arrive at any opinion.
If CMIL gives a favourable opinion the file is then sent to the
competent church authorities.
Since 1947 until recently, 1300 files have been opened, each one for the
declaration of a cure.
The CMIL met about thirty times between 1947 and 1998. They have
presented 29 files to the Church, 19 have been judged to be miraculous.
Before the CMIL came into being the Church had recognised 46 miracles.
II - Enquiry and decision of a miracle by the Church.
When the file is sent to the Bishop of the place where the cured person
lives, the case is already recognised as extraordinary by science and
medically inexplicable.
It remains for the Church, through the intermediary of the Bishop, to
make an announcement on the miraculous character of the cure.
To do this, the Bishop gathers together a Diocesan Canonical Commission
made up of priests, canonists, and theologians. The rules that guide the
procedures of this Commission are those defined in 1734 by the future
Pope Benedict XIV in his treatise: Concerning the Beatification and
Canonisation of Servants of God (Book IV, Part I, Chapter VIII nø2)
In summary the rules demand that there must not be found in the cure any
valid explanation, medical or scientific, natural or usual. This is the
case for the cures that have taken place at Lourdes, as we will see..
Having established this, it remains for the Canonical Commission to
determine that this cure comes from God.
Furnished with conclusions reached by the Commission, it is the
responsibility of the Bishop to make a definitive pronouncement and to
suggest to his Diocese and to the world that they see this cure as a
"sign from God".
-----
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stb06001.htm
Recognized Miraculous Cures at Lourdes
These miraculous cures have been recognized by the Church:
Catherine Latapie-Chouat
1 March 1858
age 38; Loubajac, France
ulnar paralysis due to traumatic elongation of the bracial
plexus for 18 months; recognized by the diocese of Tarbes, Mandate Of
Monseigneur Laurence, 18 January 1862
Louis Bouriette
March 1858
age 54; Lourdes, France
Twenty-year-old injury to the right eye; blind in the eye
for two years; recognized by the diocese of Tarbes, Mandate Of
Monseigneur Laurence, 18 January 1862
Blaisette Cazenave née Soupéne
March 1858
aprx 50 yoa; Lourdes, France
chemosis or chronic conjunctivis with ectropion for 3
years; recognized by the diocese of Tarbes, Mandate Of Monseigneur
Laurence, 18 January 1862
Henri Busquet
28 April 1858
age 15; Nay, France
fistular adenitis of the base of the neck (undoubtedly
tuberculous) for 15 months; recognized by the diocese of Tarbes, Mandate
Of Monseigneur Laurence, 18 January 1862
Justin Bouhohorts
6 July 1858
age 2; Lourdes, France
chronic post-infective malnutrition with retarded motor
development, diagnosed as "consumption"; recognized by the diocese of
Tarbes, Mandate Of Monseigneur Laurence, 18 January 1862
Madeleine Rizan
17 October 1858
age 58; Nay, France
left hemiplegia for 24 years; recognized by the diocese of
Tarbes, Mandate Of Monseigneur Laurence, 18 January 1862
Marie Moreau
9 November 1858
age 17; Tartas, France
Major diminution of vision with inflammatory lesions
especially of the right eye, progressing over 10 months; recognized by
the diocese of Tarbes, Mandate Of Monseigneur Laurence, 18 January 1862
Pierre de Rudder
7 April 1875
age 52; Jabbeke, Belgium
ununited fracture of the left leg with pseudarthrosis;
recognized by the diocese of Bruges, Belgium on 25 July 1908
Joachime Dehant
13 September 1878
age 29; Gesves, Belgium
ulcer of the right leg with extensive gangrene; recognized
by the diocese of Namur, Belgium on 25 April 1908
Elisa Seisson
29 August 1882
age 27; Rognonas, France
cardiac hypertrophy with oedema of the lower limbs;
recognized by the diocese of Aix-en-Provence on 2 July 1912
Sister Eugenie, aka Marie Mabille
21 August 1883
age 28; Bernay, France
abscess in the right iliac fossa with vesical and colic
fistulae; bilateral phlebitis; recognized by the diocese of Evreux,
France on 30 August 1908
Sister Julienne, aka Aline Bruyere
1 September 1889
age 25; La Roque, France
cavitating pulmonary tuberculosis; recognized by the
diocese of Tulle, France on 7 March 1912
Sister Josephine-Marie, aka Anne Jourdain
21 August 1890
age 36; Goincourt, France
pulmonary tuberculosis; recognized by the diocese of
Beauvais, France on 10 October 1908
Amélie Chagnon
21 August 1891
age 17; Poitiers, France
tuberculous osteo-arthritis of the knee and second
metatarsal of the foot; Chagnon became a Sacred Heart nun on 25
September 1894; cure recognized by the diocese of Tournai, Belgium on 8
September 1910
Clémentine Trouvé
21 August 1891
age 14; Rouille, France
osteo periostitis of the right foot with fistulae;
recognized by the diocese of Paris, France on 6 June 1908
Marie Lebranchu, later Marie Wuiplier
20 August 1892
age 35; Paris, France
pulmonary tuberculosis; Koch's bacillae present in sputum;
recognized by the diocese of Paris, France on 6 June 1908
Marie Lemarchand, later Marie Authier
21 August 1892
age 18; Caen, France
pulmonary tuberculosis with ulcers of the face and legs;
recognized by the parish of Paris, France on 6 June 1908
Elise Lesage
21 August 1892
age 18; Bucquoy, France
tuberculous osteo-arthritis of knee; recognized by the
parish of Arras, France on 4 February 1908
Sister Marie de la Presentation, formerly Sylvanie Delporte
31 August 1893
age 46; Lille, France
chronic tuberculous gastro-enteritis; recognized 15 August 1908
Father Cirette
31 August 1893
age 46; Beaumontel, France
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis of spinal cord (aka ALS or
Lou Gehrig's Disease); recognized by the diocese of Evreux, France of 2
November 1907
Aurélie Huprellew
21 August 1895
age 26; Saint Martin-Le-Noeud, France
acute pulmonary tuberculosis; recognized by the diocese of
Beauvais, France on 5 January 1908
Esther Brachmann
21 August 1896
age 15; Paris, France
tuberculous peritonitis; recognized by the diocese of
Paris, France on 6 June 1908
Jeanne Tulasne Jeanne
8 September 1897
age 20; Tours, France
Lumbar Pott's disease, with neuropathic club foot;
recognized by the diocese of Tours, France on 27 October 1907
Clementine Malot
21 August 1898
age 25; Gaudechart, France
pulmonary tuberculosis with haemoptysis; recognized by the
diocese of Beauvais, France on 11 January 1908
Rose Francois nee Rose Labreeuvoies
20 August 1899
age 36; Paris, France
fistular lymphangitis of the right arm with enormous
oedema; recognized by the diocese of Paris, France on 6 June 1908
Father Salvator
25 June 1900
age 38; Rouelle, France
tuberculous peritonitis; recognized by the diocese of
Rennes, France on 1 July 1908
Sister Maximilien
20 May 1901
age 43; Marseilles, France
hydatid cyst of the liver, phlebitis of the left lower
limb; recognized by the diocese of Marseille, France on 5 February 1908
Marie Savoye
20 September 1901
age 24; Cateau-Cambresis, France
rheumatic mitral valvular heart disease; recognized by the
diocese of Cambrai on 15 August 1908
Johanna Bezenac, born Johanna Dubos
8 August 1904
age 28; Saint Laurent-Des-Bâtons, France
cachexia and lupus of the face (probably tuberculous);
recognized by the diocese of Périgueux on 2 July 1908
Sister Saint-Hilaire
20 August 1904
age 39; Peyreleau, France
abdominal tumour; recognized by the diocese of Rodez,
France on 10 May 1908
Sister Sainte-Beatrix, aka Rosalie Vildier
31 August 1904
age 42; Evreux, France
laryngo-bronchitis, probably tuberculous; recognized by the
diocese of Evreux, France on 25 March 1908
Marie-Therese Noblet
31 August 1905
age 15; Avenay, France
dorso-lumbar spondylitis; recognized by the diocese of
Reims, France on 11 February 1908
Céline Douville De Franssu
21 September 1905
age 19; Tournai, Belgium
tuberculous peritonitis; recognized by the diocese of
Versailles, France on 8 December 1909
Antonia Moulin
10 August 1907
age 30; Vienne, France
fistulous osteomyelitis of right femur with arthritis of
the knee; recognized by the diocese of Grenoble 6 November 1910
Marie Borel
21-22 August 1907
age 27; Mende, France
six faecal fistulae in the lumbar and abdominal region;
recognized by the diocese of Mende on 4 June 1911
Virginie Haudebourg
17 May 1908
age 22; Lons-Le-Saulnier, France
tuberculous cystitis, nephritis; recognized by the diocese
of Saint-Claude on 25 November 1912
Marie Biré, born Marie Lucas
5 August 1908
age 41; Ofste-Gemme-La-Plaine, France
blindness of cerebral origin,bilateral optic atrophy;
recognized by the diocese of Luçon 30 July 1910
Aimée Allpoe
28 May 1909
age 37; Vern, France
multiple tuberculous abscesses with four fistulae on the
anterior abdominal wall; recognized by diocese of Angers, France on 5
August 1910
Juliette Orion
22 July 1910
age 24; Saint Hilaire-De-Voust, France
pulmonary and laryngeal tuberculous, suppurating left
mastoiditis; recognized by the diocese of Luçon on 18 October 1913
Marie Fabre
26 September 1911
age 32; Montredon, France
chronic inflammatory bowel disease, uterine prolapse;
recognized by the diocese of Cahors on 8 September 1912
Henriette Bressolles
3 July 1924
age 28; Nice, France
Pott's disease, paraplegia; recognized by the diocese of
Nice, France on 4 June 1957
Lydia Brosse
11 October 1930
age 41; Saint-Raphael, France
multiple tuberculous fistulae with wide undermining in the
left buttock; recognized by the diocese of Coutances on 5 August 1958
Sister Marie-Marguerite born Françoise Capitaine
22 January 1937
age 64; Rennes, France
abscess of the left kidney with phlyctenular oedema and
"cardiac crises"; recognized by the diocese of Rennes on 20 May 1946
Louise Jamain later Louise Maître
1 April 1937
age 22; Paris, France
pulmonary, intestinal and peritoneal tuberculosis;
recognized by the diocese of Paris, France on 14 December 1951
Francis Pascal
31 August 1938
age 3 years and 10 months; Beaucaire, France
blindness, paralysis of the lower limbs; recognized by the
diocese of Aix-en-Provence, France on 31 May 1949
Gabrielle Clauzel
15 August 1943
age 49; Oran, Algeria
Rheumatic spondylosis; bed-ridden with problems involving
kidsneys, liver and digestive system. Weighed 70 pounds by August 1943.
It was the middle of World War II, and a pilgrimage was impossible. On
the Feast of the Assumption, 15 August 1943, a Mass was said for her at
Lourdes, and she was taken to her local church for Mass. She showed
signs of great agitation during Communion, but then laid quietly on her
stretcher until the church had cleared. She then got up, walked to the
altar, and gave thanks; she had waited until the other parishioners had
left in order not to cause a scene. She was found to be completely
healed, and the cure was recognized by the diocese of Oran, Algérie on
18 March 1948.
Yvonne Fournier
19 August 1945
age 22; Limoges, France
extending and progressive post-traumatic syndrome of left
upper limb (Leriche's syndrome); recognized by the diocese of Paris,
France on 14 November 1959
Rose Martin, born Rose Perona
3 July 1947
age 46; Nice, France
cancer of the uterine cervix (epithelioma of the
cylindrical glands); recognized by the diocese of Nice, France on 17
March 1958
Jeanne Gestas, born Jeanne Pelin
22 August 1947
age 50; Bègles, France
dyspeptic disorders with post-operative obstructive
episodes; recognized by the diocese of Bordeaux on 13 July 1952
Marie-Therese Canin
9 October 1947
age 37; Marseilles, France
Dorso-lumbar Pott's disease and tuberculous peritonitis
with fistulae; recognized by the diocese of Marseilles, France on 6 June
1952
Maddalena Carini
15 August 1948
age 31; San Remo, Italy
peritoneal, pleuro-pulmonary and bony tuberculosis with
coronary disease; recognized by the diocese of Milan, Italy on 2 June 1960
Leanne Frétel
8 October 1948
age 34; Rennes, France
tuberculous peritonitis; recognized by the diocese of
Rennes, France on 20 November 1950
Théa Angèle, later Sister Marie-Mercédes
20 May 1950
age 20; Tettnang, Germany
multiple sclerosis for six years; recognized by the diocese
of Tarbes-Lourdes on 28 June 1961
Evasio Ganora
2 June 1950
age 37; Casale, Italy
Hodgkin's disease; recognized by the diocese of Casale,
Italy on 31 May 1955
Edeltraut Fulda, later Edeltraut Haidinger
12 August 1950
age 34; Wien, Austria
Addison's disease; recognized by the diocese of Vienne,
Austria on 18 May 1955
Colonel Paul Pellegrin
3 October 1950
age 52; Toulon, France
Post-operative fistula following a liver abscess in 1948.
By the time of his pilgrimage in 1950, the condition had degenerated to
an open wound that required multiple dressing changes each day, and
showed no sign of healing. On emerging from his second bath in the
waters, the wound had completely closed, and the condition never
bothered him again. Recognized by the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France
on 8 December 1953.
Brother Schwager Léo
30 April 1952
age 28; Fribourg, Switzerland
multiple sclerosis for five years; recognized by the
diocese of Fribourg, Switzerland on 18 December 1960
Alice Couteault, born Alice Gourdon
15 May 1952
age 34; Bouille-Loretz, France
multiple sclerosis for three years; recognized by the
diocese of Poitiers, France on 16 July 1956
Marie Bigot
8 October 1953 and 10 October 1954
age 31 and 32; La Richardais, France
arachnoiditis of posterior fossa (blindness, deafness,
hemiplegia); recognized by the diocese of Rennes, France 15 August 1956
Ginette Nouvel, born Ginette Fabre
21 September 1954
age 26; Carmaux, France
Budd-Chiari disease (supra-hepatic venous thrombosis);
recognized by the diocese of Albi on 31 May 1963
Elisa Aloi, later Elisa Varcalli
5 June 1958
age 27; Patti, Italy
tuberculous osteo-arthritis with fistulae at multiple sites
in the right lower limb; recognized by the diocese of Messine, Italy on
26 May 1965
Juliette Tamburini
17 July 1959
age 22; Marseilles, France
femoral osteoperiostitis with fistulae, epistaxis, for ten
years; recognized by the diocese of Marseille, France on 11 May 1965
Vittorio Micheli
1 June 1963
age 23; Scurelle, Italy
Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumor so large that his left
thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and
paralyzed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain, and could walk.
By February 1964 the tumor was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and
he returned to a normal life. Recognized by the diocese of Trento, Italy
on 26 May 1976.
Serge Perrin
1 May 1970
age 41; Lion D'Angers, France
Recurrent right hemiplegia, with ocular lesions, due to
bilateral carotid artery disorders. Symptoms, which included headache,
impaired speech and vision, and partial right-side paralysis began
without warning in February 1964. During the next six years he became
wheelchair-confined, and nearly blind. While on pilgrimage to Lourdes in
April 1970, his symptoms became worse, and he was near death on 30
April. Wheeled to the Basilica for the Ceremony the next morning, he
felt a sudden warmth from head to toe, his vision returned, and he was
able to walk unaided. First person cured during the Ceremony of the
Anointing of the Sick. Recognized by the diocese of Angers, France on 17
June 1978.
Delizia Cirolli, later Delizia Costa
24 December 1976
age 12; Paterno, Italy
Ewing's Sarcoma of right knee; recgonized by the diocese of
Catania, Italy on 28 June 1989
Jean-Pierre Bély
9 October 1987
age 51; French
multiple sclerosis; recognized by the diocese of Angoulême
on 9 February 1999
-----
> There was a trial done some years ago on cancer patients. 100 patients were
> told that they were taking chemotherapy, but instead were given an inactive
> saline solution. Nonetheless, 20% still lost their hair.
I'm sure that there was. But that's mixing oranges and apples. I don't
think a placebo has ever joined bones back together.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Paulo Joe Jingy
> Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:beg5e6$4p9d8$1@ID-
> 184733.news.dfncis.de:
>
>
>>Would a miracle witnessed by 70,000 people and reported in newspapers
>>around the world, be enough to convince you?
>
>
> Mass-hysteria?
Now all we have to do is find a way to bottle this "mass-hysteria". It
would come in handy when we need to dry our clothes.
People often use the words, "mass-hysteria", like an incantation, when
they don't understand what's going on, or when they don't want to
believe in miracles.
>>But, at
>>least until recently, the Catholic Church has always been very careful
>>before declaring a miracle *genuine*. Do you know where the term
>>"devil's advocate" originates?
>>
>
>
> Isn't that to do with the process of Beatification, rather than the
> declaring of miracles? I could be wrong, but there's a subtle difference...
The process of Beatification deals a lot with proving or disproving
miracles. It's like a court trial. (The Devil's Advocate is like the
prosecutor). They use exactly the same process, for example, when they
authenticate (or disprove) the miraculous nature of a cure, at Lourdes.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Clay Heery
>
>So... name three. Validated by scientific research. Please.
Um... DC "selling" a free option on a script?
--C.
"I know, I know, that's just one -- but it should COUNT as three."
Walter Geist
> Walter Geist wrote on 08 Jul 2003:
>
> > According to the dead sea scrolls Mary is described as a "young
> > woman", not a "virgin". It wasn't until the bible was translated into
> > Greek that Mary started to be called a virgin. The greeks already had
> > a tradition of virgin-births in their mythology, so this was a natural
> > modicifcation for them to make.
>
> In the Gospels, the Virgin Mary asked the angel -- "How can this be, as I
> have not *known* man?"
She only says that in one of the gospels. The gospels are full of
inconsistencies surrounding the birth of Jesus.
>It's immaterial whether the the Gospel writers used
> "young woman" (and inferred a virgin by doing so) or actually wrote "young
> virgin." The meaning is plain in the context -- and it did not need Greek
> mythology for further clarification. The virgin birth is not an invention
> borrowed from Greek mythology, it is an intregal part of the Gospels.
"Paul makes no reference to the virginal conception by the mother of
Jesus when speaking of Jesus' origins and divinity. His epistles were
written during the 50's A.D. and predate all of the four gospels.
Although Paul never met Jesus (who died about 30 A.D.), he personally
did know James, the brother of Jesus. Yet despite this eye-witness
link to Jesus, Paul apparently knows nothing of the virgin birth, for
he states only that Jesus was "born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4) and
was "descended from David, according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3),
thereby implying a normal birth. "
from http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_lib.htm
ProdInAHat
>> Isn't that to do with the process of Beatification, rather than the
>> declaring of miracles? I could be wrong, but there's a subtle
>> difference...
>
> The process of Beatification deals a lot with proving or disproving
> miracles. It's like a court trial. (The Devil's Advocate is like the
> prosecutor). They use exactly the same process, for example, when
> they authenticate (or disprove) the miraculous nature of a cure, at
> Lourdes.
yeah, the "Advocatus Diaboli" is very much the Ken Starr of the Catholic
Church. Interesting article on Lourdes, thanks for posting.
Joe Myers
the grounds at Lourdes.
Joe Myers
"He makes the blind man walk
again, he makes the cripple see."
RonB
> RonB <ezbo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns93B217B2D7F6...@130.133.1.4>...
>> In the Gospels, the Virgin Mary asked the angel -- "How can this be,
>> as I have not *known* man?"
>
> She only says that in one of the gospels. The gospels are full of
> inconsistencies surrounding the birth of Jesus.
One Gospel is enough (and your "inconsistencies" are only imagined). But
we do find that St. Matthew's Gospel confirms what is written in St.
Luke's Gospel. The angel told St. Joseph not to fear to take the Virgin
Mary as his wife, "for what was conceived in her was of the Holy Ghost."
In other words, the pregnancy was not normal.
> "Paul makes no reference to the virginal conception by the mother of
> Jesus when speaking of Jesus' origins and divinity. His epistles were
> written during the 50's A.D. and predate all of the four gospels.
> Although Paul never met Jesus (who died about 30 A.D.), he personally
> did know James, the brother of Jesus. Yet despite this eye-witness
> link to Jesus, Paul apparently knows nothing of the virgin birth, for
> he states only that Jesus was "born of a woman" (Galatians 4:4) and
> was "descended from David, according to the flesh" (Romans 1:3),
> thereby implying a normal birth. "
St. Paul's epistles were not intended to be a history of Christ's life. He
wrote to the separate churches dealing with specific problems. (It should
be noted that St. Luke was St. Paul's traveling companion, BTW.) The
verses you quote do not oppose the Gospels -- you'll find Christ's
physical geneology traced in the Gospels also (according to the Christian
Faith, He is both fully Man and fully God). And, no, St. Paul did not
intend to imply a "normal birth" for Christ. He often wrote that Christ
was the Son of God. In Philippians 2 he wrote: "Let this mind be in you,
which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it
not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and
took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath
highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:"
I'm sorry, but you're clutching at straws in your attempt to prove that
the New Testament "doesn't really speak of a virgin birth." St. Paul's
epistles do not oppose St. Luke's Gospel, rather they confirm Christ's
special birth -- that He is the Son of God and of the Virgin Mary. Fully
God and fully Man.
D C
----------
In article <20030709020547...@mb-m11.aol.com>,
clay...@aol.comNOSPAM (Clay Heery) wrote:
So are so damn original you have to borrow lame flames.
A real miracle would be if you ever said anything better than your
best post thus far - 'blue is a verb.'
Incidentally on the subject of options, my options represent something
quite useful.
Guess you will never understand. Ahhh shucks.
D C
----------
In article <2bf6ff6b.03070...@posting.google.com>,
geoffale...@hotmail.com (geoff alexander) wrote:
>>
>> What about it, Geoff--is that a possibility? Hmmmm?
>
> Paulo, here is a fact; you have chosen the wrong religion. I can
> attest to this with absolute certitude. Why can't you see that I'm
> simply trying to help you?
>
>
Doing a great job GA. Keep trying to convert him to your religion.
Soon Paulo might be on a beach listening to 'Pet Sounds' on his
personal stereo, imagining he is Steven Spieberg.
D C
----------
In article <fd1f2fb3.03070...@posting.google.com>,
astro...@hotmail.com (Walter Geist) wrote:
If you wan to bandy words about the scriptures at least read 'em.
WRabkin
>The thing about you guys is that you ask for 'proof' -
It was you who said that there were scads of miracles validated by scientific
research. You can't claim that science backs you up, and then complain because
someone asks for proof -- when you've already stated that such proof exists.
Unless, of course, you're the president of the US.
nmstevens
> Walter Geist wrote on 09 Jul 2003:
>
> > RonB <ezbo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns93B217B2D7F6...@130.133.1.4>...
(snip)
> I'm sorry, but you're clutching at straws in your attempt to prove that
> the New Testament "doesn't really speak of a virgin birth." St. Paul's
> epistles do not oppose St. Luke's Gospel, rather they confirm Christ's
> special birth -- that He is the Son of God and of the Virgin Mary. Fully
> God and fully Man.
While I don't think that there's any real inconsistency as to the
question of Mary being a "maiden" (or whatever term of translation one
wishes to apply -- maiden, umarried girl -- young woman -- virgin --
it all comes down to the same thing) and thus of Jesus' birth, within
the context of the New Testament story, being miraculous.
But -- oh, man, I'm going to hate myself for this --
Fully God and Fully Man.
Given the above two terms as we commonly understand them, how can one
possibly not recognize the terms as *not* being mutually exclusive?
One might as well say "fully cube" and "fully sphere."
What precisely does that mean?
Any entity that you might choose is defined by the qualities it
possesses and by the qualities it lacks. By what it can do and what it
can't. By its physical shape and its attributes.
To say that an entity is "fully x" means that it possesses all of the
qualities that define the entity X and lacks none of those qualities
that define X -- and also possesses no qualities that X never
possesses.
Well, lets see -- among those qualities that define the entity: Man --
-- imperfect, occupies a finite physical space, capable of evil,
limited mental capacity.
- thus any entity that is "fully" man -- must fully possess those
defining qualities.
-- among those qualities that define the putative entity: God --
-- Perfect, occupies an infinite, limitless environment outside of
space and time, incapable of evil, all knowing.
-- any entity which is "fully" God must fully possess those defining
qualities --
-- thus --
fully perfect and imperfect.
fully capable of evil and incapable of evil.
etc., etc., etc., etc.
I'm sorry -- it just doesn't make any sense.
And to invoke the "Well, since it's god, god transcends our mere,
mortal "sense" -- well, that doesn't make any sense either.
Illogical statements can't be justified by invoking the entities to
which they are being applied. That's because the statements never
actually *reach* the entities in question.
That's because illogical statements have no meaning -- and statements
that have no meaning cannot apply to or describe anything at all.
If I were to ask you if god can fribble a jurnistak - and were to
establish as a caveat that neither of those words mean anything at all
-- they're just nonsense words -- and then ask again -- can god do it
-- can he fribble a jurnistak -- I suspect you would reply "no" -- he
can't.
But why not? Isn't he all powerful? Then why can't he?
Because the words don't mean anything. I haven't actually posed a real
challenge. I haven't asked a real question. There isn't anything to be
done. It's just nonsense syllables. It has nothing to do with the
putative power of god. I haven't actually asked anything.
In the same token, were I to ask - can one lift a color -- and make
clear, as a caveat, not a colored object, or a thing that possessed or
projected a color - but a color in itself, an abstract color -- the
answer would have to be "no" -- and were I to say, well how about
Arnold Shwarzenegger? Could he lift a color? It would still be no.
But, gee, Arnold is really, really strong. It wouldn't make any
difference. How about god? God is infinitely strong. Would he be able
to lift a color?
It wouldn't make any difference how strong you were -- because the
term -- to lift a color -- doesn't mean anything -- it presumes that
the latter term -- color -- possesses a quality (solidness) necessary
to be lifted, that, in fact, it lacks. In point of fact, though all
the words are real, their use, in that phrase, render them as
nonsensical as the nonsense words I used above.
Because it is meaningless to speak of lifting a color, it describes
nothing that *can* be done. Not by me, you, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or
god.
In the same way, illogical expressions, are intrinsically nonsensical.
And in the same, illogical expressions, cannot be done. It doesn't
make any difference how powerful a particular "doer" may be. The
expression never offers any "doer" a task capable of being done, any
more than narfling a glamboni or any other string of nonsense
syllables does.
And so if an expression like, "Fully God and Fully Man" is illogical
-- and I cannot but see it as such -- then it simply must be untrue --
as must all illogical statements be.
That is because all illogical statements, like statements consisting
of nonsense syllables, are fundamentally devoid of meaning.
The test of the truth of a statement is to apply the statement to its
referent.
The rock is on the table.
You look on the table. There's the rock.
The statement is true.
But statements devoid of meaning obviously cannot apply to anything.
Thus they have no external referents.
Thus, intrinsically, they cannot be true.
So you can't go looking outside of such statements for their
confirmation. You can't get outside of them at all. Illogical
statements are intrinsically, inherently false.
It's not my fault. It's just the way it is.
NMS
D C
----------
In article <20030709122844...@mb-m22.aol.com>,
wra...@aol.com (WRabkin) wrote:
I am not a preacher or apologist for paranormal activity.
I merely state a fact in that 'miraculous' activity has been verified
as such by 'science.' (Or at least verified as having no rational
explanation - much the same thing, unless we wanna talk like lawyers
or politicians, or skeptics.
I gave you an example, could give others, but I guess if you don't
get interested in the Perth thing what's the point?
If your faith is skepticism stick at it - with effort, one day you
might believe in nothing at all!
Regards
D C
----------
In article <a8f80314.03070...@posting.google.com>,
nmst...@msn.com (nmstevens) wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, but you're clutching at straws in your attempt to prove that
>> the New Testament "doesn't really speak of a virgin birth." St. Paul's
>> epistles do not oppose St. Luke's Gospel, rather they confirm Christ's
>> special birth -- that He is the Son of God and of the Virgin Mary. Fully
>> God and fully Man.
>
>
> While I don't think that there's any real inconsistency as to the
> question of Mary being a "maiden" (or whatever term of translation one
> wishes to apply -- maiden, umarried girl -- young woman -- virgin --
> it all comes down to the same thing) and thus of Jesus' birth, within
> the context of the New Testament story, being miraculous.
>
> But -- oh, man, I'm going to hate myself for this --
>
> Fully God and Fully Man.
>
> Given the above two terms as we commonly understand them, how can one
> possibly not recognize the terms as *not* being mutually exclusive?
>
> One might as well say "fully cube" and "fully sphere."
>
> What precisely does that mean?
>
Aw, this is pure semantics.
A thing can fully embody the qualities of two things. The issue is of
perspective.
AuntieLib
> "Gnostic tradition" has nothing to do with Christianity.
Except that it is a direct offshoot and Gnosticism is a branch of
Christianity. (Minor detail.)
> If you want to delve into conspiracy theories and groundless suppositions,
> you can (if you'll pardon the expression) get into all kinds of weird shit.
>
> > If this is an invention of people's imaginations, its as old as
> > Christianity itself.
>
> Yeah? And your point is?... I mean Christ lived on earth, as a man,
> only 2000 years ago.
Got evidence? (It amazes me how many Christians are convinced that
their religion is based on some set of facts unique to Jesus Christ
and, when asked to produce these facts, find out they ain't got shit.)
> People were inventing false religions long before that.
Of course. And the fact that the myth of Jesus was taken almost
verbatim from myths of Mithras (and Zeus and Osiris) establishes Jesus
as the One Really True Not Mythical Religion how? The life and death
of Jesus is just one more myth, and not an original one, at that. The
whole virgin birth, born humbly in a stable, performed miracles, was
crucified and resurrected schtick was old even 2000 years ago when
they used it to create a religion around some guy named Yeshua who may
or may not have even existed.
elizabeth
Paulo Joe Jingy
> RonB <ezbo...@lycos.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93B3281245CC6...@130.133.1.4>...
>
>>Walter Geist wrote on 09 Jul 2003:
>>
>>
>>>RonB <ezbo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
>>>news:<Xns93B217B2D7F6...@130.133.1.4>...
>
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
>>I'm sorry, but you're clutching at straws in your attempt to prove that
>>the New Testament "doesn't really speak of a virgin birth." St. Paul's
>>epistles do not oppose St. Luke's Gospel, rather they confirm Christ's
>>special birth -- that He is the Son of God and of the Virgin Mary. Fully
>>God and fully Man.
>
>
>
> While I don't think that there's any real inconsistency as to the
> question of Mary being a "maiden" (or whatever term of translation one
> wishes to apply -- maiden, umarried girl -- young woman -- virgin --
> it all comes down to the same thing) and thus of Jesus' birth, within
> the context of the New Testament story, being miraculous.
>
> But -- oh, man, I'm going to hate myself for this --
>
> Fully God and Fully Man.
>
> Given the above two terms as we commonly understand them, how can one
> possibly not recognize the terms as *not* being mutually exclusive?
It's a paradox. Catholics call it a mystery. It's where faith comes
in. I believe it--no one can explain it.
> One might as well say "fully cube" and "fully sphere."
>
> What precisely does that mean?
It means, precisely, that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. You
can't place the supernatural into the realm of the natural.
> Any entity that you might choose is defined by the qualities it
> possesses and by the qualities it lacks. By what it can do and what it
> can't. By its physical shape and its attributes.
en·ti·ty
n. pl. en·ti·ties
1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons
and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.
2. The fact of existence; being.
3. The existence of something considered apart from its properties.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Does a thought exist? Can you measure it's weight? Can you see it?
Can you hold it? Does it have physical substance? Does that mean it
doesn't exist?
> To say that an entity is "fully x" means that it possesses all of the
> qualities that define the entity X and lacks none of those qualities
> that define X -- and also possesses no qualities that X never
> possesses.
I agree completely--if you're describing something that exists only in
the natural realm. Catholics/Christians are well aware of what you're
saying and have been for over two-thousand years.
But if you can put God in a box and examine him and figure out what
makes Him tick, then He really isn't God, is He? Even though you don't
believe in the existence of God--you'll have to admit that *if* God did
exist and *if* God did create heaven and earth, He would be above the
natural laws that He created.
> Well, lets see -- among those qualities that define the entity: Man --
>
> -- imperfect, occupies a finite physical space, capable of evil,
> limited mental capacity.
>
> - thus any entity that is "fully" man -- must fully possess those
> defining qualities.
> -- among those qualities that define the putative entity: God --
>
> -- Perfect, occupies an infinite, limitless environment outside of
> space and time, incapable of evil, all knowing.
>
> -- any entity which is "fully" God must fully possess those defining
> qualities --
>
> -- thus --
>
> fully perfect and imperfect.
>
> fully capable of evil and incapable of evil.
>
> etc., etc., etc., etc.
>
>
> I'm sorry -- it just doesn't make any sense.
That's why Catholics call it a mystery. But just because we don't
understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense. Even in the
natural world people use tools they don't understand, every day. That
only means they don't understand it, it doesn't mean "it just doesn't
make any sense".
The Incarnation is a central belief of Judaism and Christianity. It's
religion, it's faith, the concept is really not that complicated. My
children can understand it. "God came down to earth, was born of a
women and became man".
Your question is how does it work, what's the nuts and bolts of it.
When discussing the supernatural--trying to get down to the nuts and
bolts, is something that "just doesn't make any sense".
> And to invoke the "Well, since it's god, god transcends our mere,
> mortal "sense" -- well, that doesn't make any sense either.
Now that *is* illogical. Why wouldn't our Creator "transcend our mere,
mortal 'sense'"? What you say doesn't make any sense. Of course the
Creator would transcend His creation. It wouldn't make any sense, any
other way.
> Illogical statements can't be justified by invoking the entities to
> which they are being applied. That's because the statements never
> actually *reach* the entities in question.
>
> That's because illogical statements have no meaning -- and statements
> that have no meaning cannot apply to or describe anything at all.
What's illogical is trying to put the supernatural into a physical box.
What's illogical is saying that an immortal God, our creator *can't*
"transcend our mere, mortal 'sense'". Exactly the opposite *has* to be
true. The Creator has to "transcend our mere, mortal 'sense'". It
can't work any other way. Are you suggesting that a Creator would *have
to be* equal or more limited then the creation?
> If I were to ask you if god can fribble a jurnistak - and were to
> establish as a caveat that neither of those words mean anything at all
> -- they're just nonsense words -- and then ask again -- can god do it
> -- can he fribble a jurnistak -- I suspect you would reply "no" -- he
> can't.
No, I would say "speak in English and try to make some sense".
> But why not? Isn't he all powerful? Then why can't he?
Why can't He, what? You have to express yourself coherently, before any
"logical" conclusions can be made.
> Because the words don't mean anything. I haven't actually posed a real
> challenge. I haven't asked a real question. There isn't anything to be
> done. It's just nonsense syllables. It has nothing to do with the
> putative power of god. I haven't actually asked anything.
That's right, you've spoken gibberish.
Obviously the statement is *not* "fundamentally devoid of meaning",
because you've used quite a few words writing about it. You couldn't do
that with something that was truly "devoid of meaning". An example of
something "fundamentally devoid of meaning", is the gibberish that you
used a few paragraphs above this one. You understand the meaning of
what was said--what you don't understand is how it could be possible.
That's not the same thing as "fundamentally devoid of meaning".
You don't understand how it could be possible because your looking at it
from a frame of reference which doesn't apply. It's not logical to
examine the supernatural in a natural context. That's doesn't even make
sense. It's like trying to quantify a thought. You can't see its
color, or weigh it, or measure it, or shape it, precisely because these
frames of reference don't apply to thoughts. But, I think, even you
have to admit that thoughts exist.
You may call it a cop-out, but the supernatural is by definition
(literally) above the natural. God is by definition
supernatural--therefore you have to study God in the context of the
supernatural. Expecting to quantify Him, to see His color, or weigh
Him, or measure Him, or shape Him, won't work, and for you to tell me
this, is at best--obvious. I know God doesn't conform to physical laws.
He wouldn't be God, if He did.
> The test of the truth of a statement is to apply the statement to its
> referent.
>
> The rock is on the table.
>
> You look on the table. There's the rock.
>
> The statement is true.
>
>
> But statements devoid of meaning obviously cannot apply to anything.
> Thus they have no external referents.
And you can't have a coherent discussion of statements that are "devoid
of meaning". The statement is obviously not "devoid of meaning". The
meaning is clear. You just can't understand how it could be. Join the
club.
> Thus, intrinsically, they cannot be true.
Gibberish can't be true or false. Something truly "devoid of meaning"
can't be true or false.
> So you can't go looking outside of such statements for their
> confirmation. You can't get outside of them at all. Illogical
> statements are intrinsically, inherently false.
I'm not going outside of anything. I accept that Jesus Christ is fully
God and is fully man. I understand it's a paradox and a mystery. I
have faith.
> It's not my fault. It's just the way it is.
From your frame of reference--you won't see it any other way. But that
doesn't make your beliefs logical or rational. It's illogical, even for
someone who doesn't believe in God, to infer that the Creator couldn't
transcend the creation. It's illogical, even for someone who doesn't
believe in God, to attempt to apply natural constraints on a
supernatural being.
And that's not my fault, either. That's just the way it is.
-----
Paulo Joe Dingy
Alan Brooks
"Paulo Joe Jingy" writes:
> The Incarnation is a central belief of Judaism and Christianity. It's
> religion, it's faith, the concept is really not that complicated. My
> children can understand it. "God came down to earth, was born of a
> women and became man".
Hindu is full of avatars as well. Lord Vishnu is said to have incarnated 10
times throughout the history of the universe: Rama, Krishna and Buddha were
all claimed by Hindus to be avatars of Vishnu. Shiva -- sort of "God The
Father" -- is claimed to have never incarnated, but Brahma too has a number
of avatars.
In the Ramayana, the Hindus even have an avatar of an avatar: Arjuna's
charioteer turns out to be an avatar of Krishna, who in turn is an avatar of
of Shiva.
[Whoa... I think I'm channelling Dr. Jai here...]
The Romans and Greeks had simpler beliefs: rather than invoking
"incarnation", their Gods simply appeared in human form whenever they felt
the desire to walk amongst the mortals -- often fighting, fornicating or
simply testing their mortal followers. Early Jewish stories have this
element as well: God is said to have "walked" through the Garden of Eden,
and appeared as a burning bush... cool stuff. You've gotta wonder why he
stopped doing it.
And of course tribal and animistic belief systems have their Gods incarnate
as animals, mountains, corn, weather systems... you name it.
Anyway, the concept of an avatar isn't unique to Jewish or Christian belief.
The only thing that makes the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity unique is
Christians' belief that it is.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- Pantheism: The belief that Nigella Lawson is God.
Dlehmicke
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>A Schmuck with an Underwood
When they make a movie of your life, it will star Ewan McGregor.
Name That Allusion!!!! (or, What DVD Did I Rent Last Night?)
Michael Dines
> There was a trial done some years ago on cancer patients. 100 patients were
> told that they were taking chemotherapy, but instead were given an inactive
> saline solution. Nonetheless, 20% still lost their hair.
And how many of those 20% were cured of cancer compared to the chemo
group?
Who did this research? When? And, more important, when were the immoral
bastards struck off the medical register?
Alan Brooks
Uh... "Trainspotting"??? "Down With Love"???
You lost me, but thank you for naming Ewan and not, say, Steve Buscemi.
Alan Brooks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- I'll owe you the smack.
Ghost
Dlehmicke
Ghost wins.
nmstevens
A thing can fully embody, say, the qualities of many things. They
cannot, however, *fully* embody the qualities of two entities that
possess mutually exclusive qualities.
Can object X *fully* and simultaneously embody the qualities of two
entities, one of which has a mass of a hundred pounds and one of
which has a mass of two hundred pounds?
No - because an object cannot simultaneously have a mass of both one
hundred and two hundred pounds.
Man and God possess mutually exclusive qualities. An entity may be
*partially* man and *parially* god with no logical contradictions -
but unless you want to play fast and loose with the definitions -- a
single entity cannot possess both *fully*.
Semantics is the study of language -- which we use to communicate
ideas.
If a statement is incoherent, it is devoid of meaning. If a statement
upon which a belief is based, is devoid of meaning, then the belief
is, likewise, devoid of meaning.
NMS
Sean O'Hara
declared...
> Sean O'Hara wrote:
> >
> > But we aren't just talking about the Virgin Mary; the subject is the
> > three Marys who appeared at the cross in John 18:25 -- Mary the
> > Virgin, Mary Magdalene the Whore, and the Mary the sister of the
> > Virgin Mary (!) who's there to fill out the trifecta. This is
> > explicit in the gnostic tradition, particularly the Gospel of
> > Mary Magdalene, where they're treated as a single godhead, a
> > female trinity.
>
> "Gnostic tradition" has nothing to do with Christianity.
Really? You mean the Gnostics weren't one of the many Christian
sects wiped out by the Catholics in the early first millenium?
The history of Christianity sounds very different in your world.
> If you want to
> delve into conspiracy theories and groundless suppositions, you can (if
> you'll pardon the expression) get into all kinds of weird shit.
>
> > If this is an invention of people's imaginations,
> > its as old as Christianity itself.
>
> Yeah? And your point is?... I mean Christ lived on earth, as a man,
> only 2000 years ago. People were inventing false religions long before
> that.
>
But Gnosticism is a branch of Christianity, which you obviously
don't believe is a false religion. So why do you discount the
Gnostic beliefs? Because some *Pope* almost two thousand years
ago declared them heretical? Because a highly politicized
committee in Nicaea decided Gnostic tinged works shouldn't be
part of the canon?
Seriously, I suggest you go to the library and find some books on
the early history of Christianity.
> (Kind of abandoned the Greek mythology angle, eh? And after it gave you
> should a good laugh too). Oh well--on to something new in the next
> post, I suppose.
>
No, I explained exactly how the three Marys at the cross resemble
the Fates and pointed you to the scriptures.
--
Sean O'Hara
"Harry goes through absolute hell every time he returns to school.
So I think that a bit of snogging would alleviate matters."
--J.K. Rowling
D C
----------
In article <a8f80314.03070...@posting.google.com>,
nmst...@msn.com (nmstevens) wrote:
snip
>>
>> Aw, this is pure semantics.
>>
>> A thing can fully embody the qualities of two things. The issue is of
>> perspective.
>
> A thing can fully embody, say, the qualities of many things. They
> cannot, however, *fully* embody the qualities of two entities that
> possess mutually exclusive qualities.
It is a very interesting point - I say 'semantics' used loosely as the issue
seems to me based in designation rather than reality.
On a crude material level I agree with you. I do believe one thing can
embody the qualities of things that are mutually exclusive.
Quantum physics shows that. (I hate to mention 'quantum physics' as it seems
to rile skeptics a little, and we will have Alan "Planck's Constant' Brooks
reinterpreting nature for us. )
So I will leave it there for the moment.
(Runs away nervously.)
Best.
Paulo Joe Jingy
> In the Year of the Goat, the Great and Powerful Paulo Joe Jingy
> declared...
>
>>Sean O'Hara wrote:
>>
>>>But we aren't just talking about the Virgin Mary; the subject is the
>>>three Marys who appeared at the cross in John 18:25 -- Mary the
>>>Virgin, Mary Magdalene the Whore, and the Mary the sister of the
>>>Virgin Mary (!) who's there to fill out the trifecta. This is
>>>explicit in the gnostic tradition, particularly the Gospel of
>>>Mary Magdalene, where they're treated as a single godhead, a
>>>female trinity.
>>
>>"Gnostic tradition" has nothing to do with Christianity.
>
>
> Really? You mean the Gnostics weren't one of the many Christian
> sects wiped out by the Catholics in the early first millenium?
> The history of Christianity sounds very different in your world.
My world is called "The Real World". Welcome.
>>If you want to
>>delve into conspiracy theories and groundless suppositions, you can (if
>>you'll pardon the expression) get into all kinds of weird shit.
>>
>>
>>>If this is an invention of people's imaginations,
>>>its as old as Christianity itself.
>>
>>Yeah? And your point is?... I mean Christ lived on earth, as a man,
>>only 2000 years ago. People were inventing false religions long before
>>that.
>>
>
> But Gnosticism is a branch of Christianity, which you obviously
> don't believe is a false religion. So why do you discount the
> Gnostic beliefs? Because some *Pope* almost two thousand years
> ago declared them heretical? Because a highly politicized
> committee in Nicaea decided Gnostic tinged works shouldn't be
> part of the canon?
You're going to have to take a breath. Somebody has got you all wound up.
> Seriously, I suggest you go to the library and find some books on
> the early history of Christianity.
You mean books "on the early history of Christianity", by the enemies of
Christianity? Those who have an interest in discrediting Christianity?
>>(Kind of abandoned the Greek mythology angle, eh? And after it gave you
>>should a good laugh too). Oh well--on to something new in the next
>>post, I suppose.
>>
>
> No, I explained exactly how the three Marys at the cross resemble
> the Fates and pointed you to the scriptures.
Like I said, someone's has you all cranked up. C'mon--admit it--you
wouldn't have seen this "so-called resemblance" if somebody hadn't
mentioned it in a book, somewhere. It's not obvious. It doesn't beg to
be noticed.
It's genesis began with someone, somewhere, desperately clutching at
straws. Someone, somewhere, who would like to discredit Christianity.
Isn't that right?
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Walter Geist
> wrote to the separate churches dealing with specific problems. (It should
> be noted that St. Luke was St. Paul's traveling companion, BTW.) The
> verses you quote do not oppose the Gospels -- you'll find Christ's
> physical geneology traced in the Gospels also (according to the Christian
> Faith, He is both fully Man and fully God).
When they traced his geneology, they did it through Joseph. But if
Jesus was made by only God and Mary, then you can't trace his
bloodline back through Joseph.
Walter Geist
> If you wan to bandy words about the scriptures at least read 'em.
I want to. Unfortunately the Catholic Church supressed the the dead
sea scrolls for decades, and so good translations have not been
readily available. I have, however, read the Gospels of Philip, and
the Gospels of Thomas. Have you?
new...@virtual.com
>Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:beg5e6$4p9d8$1@ID-
>184733.news.dfncis.de:
>> But, at
>> least until recently, the Catholic Church has always been very careful
>> before declaring a miracle *genuine*. Do you know where the term
>> "devil's advocate" originates?
John Ashcroft?
Doug
---
"Renaissance Schmenaissance, this is a mid-life crisis."
- Brick Rage
Paulo Joe Jingy
>>Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:beg5e6$4p9d8$1@ID-
>>184733.news.dfncis.de:
>
>
>>>But, at
>>>least until recently, the Catholic Church has always been very careful
>>>before declaring a miracle *genuine*. Do you know where the term
>>>"devil's advocate" originates?
>
>
> John Ashcroft?
No--no--no! I said "The Devil's Advocate", not "The Devil's Sex Slave".
Paulo Joe Jingy
This is the kind of thing that makes me think you have no clue what
you're talking about.
Access to the Dead Sea Scrolls is not administered by the Catholic
Church. It is administered by the Israel Antiquities Authority and the
Hebrew University.
In case you're wondering, they're *not* same thing as the Catholic
Church. (Just wanted to make sure you understood that).
So you see (as desperate as you like to believe it), the Catholic Church
can't *suppress* what they don't control.
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Paulo Joe Jingy
Is this a new *revelation* to you? Golly, I think you've shaken the
pillars of my faith!
From Radio Replies by Fathers Rumble and Carty. copyright 1938
"Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph. But Mary, who was the mother
of Jesus, was related to Joseph, whose genealogy was also her own. It
was a Jewish custom to record descent only through the male line."
Now, do you want to know why Matthew records 42 generations and Luke
records 72?
Also from Radio Replies.
"Why did St. Matt. choose to 42 generations only? Because he wrote for
the Jews and wished to show Christ was the Messiah, the Son of David.
In Hebrew David's name consists of three letters, and those letters
numerically signify 14. Thus D-V-D have the numerical significance
4-6-4. Following a Jewish custom, St. Matt. gives three times 14, i.e.,
42 generations, or the Davidic generation.
St. Luke, on the other hand, chose 72, because having been the companion
of St. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, he wrote for the Gentiles.
Jewish tradition held that there were 72 races of men throughout the
world, and St. Luke wished to show that Christ would call all nations to
His religion. This may seem complicated to us, but it was not to the
Jews of those times."
Did you see anything about that, in your precious book: "Them Arful
Things the Catholic Church Has Did!" by Rev. Peabody Sneer. I'm not
surprised. Things are a *little* more complicated, in the "real world".
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
And them Catholics also changed the Sabbath day to Sunday! Did you know
that?!
nmstevens
> nmstevens wrote:
> > RonB <ezbo...@lycos.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93B3281245CC6...@130.133.1.4>...
> >
> >>Walter Geist wrote on 09 Jul 2003:
> >>
> >>
> >>>RonB <ezbo...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:<Xns93B217B2D7F6...@130.133.1.4>...
> >
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> >
> >
> >>I'm sorry, but you're clutching at straws in your attempt to prove that
> >>the New Testament "doesn't really speak of a virgin birth." St. Paul's
> >>epistles do not oppose St. Luke's Gospel, rather they confirm Christ's
> >>special birth -- that He is the Son of God and of the Virgin Mary. Fully
> >>God and fully Man.
> >
> >
> >
> > While I don't think that there's any real inconsistency as to the
> > question of Mary being a "maiden" (or whatever term of translation one
> > wishes to apply -- maiden, umarried girl -- young woman -- virgin --
> > it all comes down to the same thing) and thus of Jesus' birth, within
> > the context of the New Testament story, being miraculous.
> >
> > But -- oh, man, I'm going to hate myself for this --
> >
> > Fully God and Fully Man.
> >
> > Given the above two terms as we commonly understand them, how can one
> > possibly not recognize the terms as *not* being mutually exclusive?
>
> It's a paradox. Catholics call it a mystery. It's where faith comes
> in. I believe it--no one can explain it.
Well, in the English tongue, which, so so far as I know, isn't any
different for Catholics as it is for other people, a paradox is not
synonymous with a mystery.
A paradox is an apparent or actually self-contradictory statement or
state of affairs.
The term *mystery* can be used either in a religious sense -- as rite
or ritual or a divine occurence or in a secular sense -- as an
unexplained or inexplicable occurence, but in neither sense does it
mean the above.
>
> > One might as well say "fully cube" and "fully sphere."
> >
> > What precisely does that mean?
>
> It means, precisely, that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. You
> can't place the supernatural into the realm of the natural.
But if one says that the Red Sea parts -- that one can clearly say,
"yeah, okay, if that were to happen, that would be a supernatural
occurence."
But if you were to say that, "At 6:15 this morning, the sun rose over
Cape Cod and at 6:15 this morning, the sun did not rise over Cape Cod
this morning," -- that doesn't seem like a description of something
supernatural -- it just seems like an intrinsically contradictory
statement that doesn't mean anything at all -- and invoking god, the
unknown, the supernatural, the power of Amon Ra, or anything else you
like doesn't somehow get it over the hump of being intrinsically
devoid of meaning.
It is we, the makers and users of the words that give them meaning. If
the words themselves don't mean anything as we use them -- the fact
that god is one of the words being used cannot somehow invest them
with meaning automatically. They have to mean something intrinsically.
>
> > Any entity that you might choose is defined by the qualities it
> > possesses and by the qualities it lacks. By what it can do and what it
> > can't. By its physical shape and its attributes.
>
> en·ti·ty
> n. pl. en·ti·ties
>
> 1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: Persons
> and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.
> 2. The fact of existence; being.
> 3. The existence of something considered apart from its properties.
>
> Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
> Fourth Edition
> Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
> Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
>
> Does a thought exist? Can you measure it's weight? Can you see it?
> Can you hold it? Does it have physical substance? Does that mean it
> doesn't exist?
Of course. Straw man.
All that is necessary for an entity to exist is for it to possess a
defined set of non-contradictory qualities that we have previously
assigned to a term we use to describe it.
If anything exists that fits the set of terms we use to describe an
entity known as a "thought" -- then thoughts exist.
It doesn't have to be solid. You don't have to be able to weigh it or
see it -- unless the entity in question is visible and has weight.
All that's necessary for a god to exist is for there to be something
identifiable that fits the set of non-contradictory qualities we use
to define such a being.
Unfortunately, I've yet to be able to come up either with a set of
non-contradictory qualities - nor have I been able to to find an
entity that's even remotely identifiable as applying to such a set of
qualities.
> > To say that an entity is "fully x" means that it possesses all of the
> > qualities that define the entity X and lacks none of those qualities
> > that define X -- and also possesses no qualities that X never
> > possesses.
>
> I agree completely--if you're describing something that exists only in
> the natural realm. Catholics/Christians are well aware of what you're
> saying and have been for over two-thousand years.
Well, then you should stop tossing around self-contradictory stuff
that can't possibly exist.
> But if you can put God in a box and examine him and figure out what
> makes Him tick, then He really isn't God, is He? Even though you don't
> believe in the existence of God--you'll have to admit that *if* God did
> exist and *if* God did create heaven and earth, He would be above the
> natural laws that He created.
But clearly, god cannot possibly be above the laws by which *he*
functions - and he must function according to some sort of internal
constants. If I think - lift up and move that rock over there, my arm
reaches out, my hand folds around the rock -- and I lift up the rock.
If god thinks, "create that world" -- the world comes into being -- by
some means or other. Thus the mechanism, internal to god, presumably,
by which that thought of god becomes actualized, must be fixed and
constant. It cannot just dance around -- be one thing one instant and
something totally different the next. If that were the case, then God
might wish to make an elephant one instant and end up with an elephant
and might want to make an elephant the next instant and come up with a
wildebeeste. And god, obviously, cannot be the one that "makes" those
internal constants be the way they are -- because he would need those
"internal constants" to *be* constant in order to be able to do things
like, well, to make his own internal constants be constant.
Thus, in order to be able to do things like think, act, function at
all, any being -- including god, needs to exist within a nexus of
constants that permit actions to proceed in an orderly way -- that
allow things like thoughts and actions and creations to occur. And the
things that exist within that nexus can't have created the nexus --
because you need to exist within a nexus of constants in order to be
able to do things like think, "Gee, I think I'll creat a nexus of
constants," and then exercise your limitless powers to create a nexus
of constants."
You might be able to generate a truly lovely realm of natural laws and
constants for somebody else. But you can't do it for yourself. The
realm of your own natural laws has to already be there, with you in
it, in order for you to be able to exist and function.
It's just one of those odd little problems that theists brush under
the rug by yelling "Transcendental!" in a very loud voice.
>
> > Well, lets see -- among those qualities that define the entity: Man --
> >
> > -- imperfect, occupies a finite physical space, capable of evil,
> > limited mental capacity.
> >
> > - thus any entity that is "fully" man -- must fully possess those
> > defining qualities.
>
> > -- among those qualities that define the putative entity: God --
> >
> > -- Perfect, occupies an infinite, limitless environment outside of
> > space and time, incapable of evil, all knowing.
> >
> > -- any entity which is "fully" God must fully possess those defining
> > qualities --
> >
> > -- thus --
> >
> > fully perfect and imperfect.
> >
> > fully capable of evil and incapable of evil.
> >
> > etc., etc., etc., etc.
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry -- it just doesn't make any sense.
>
> That's why Catholics call it a mystery. But just because we don't
> understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense. Even in the
> natural world people use tools they don't understand, every day. That
> only means they don't understand it, it doesn't mean "it just doesn't
> make any sense".
So far as I can see, this is no different from finding a page of
equations somewhere in the New Testament reading, "And the Lord
sayeth, 1+1=3 and 2+2=5" and you reply, "Well, God is transcendent --
it's a mystery."
And my reply to you is -- so far as I can see, there is absolutely no
mystery at all. And there is nothing to transcend.
It doesn't make any difference how wise, powerful, or mysterious god
is.
1+1 doesn't equal 3. Period.
That's simply arithmetic.
And logic makes it equally clear that mutually exclusive terms cannot
exist within the same set.
>
> The Incarnation is a central belief of Judaism and Christianity. It's
> religion, it's faith, the concept is really not that complicated. My
> children can understand it. "God came down to earth, was born of a
> women and became man".
You love to toss around the word "fact" -- not only is the
"incarnation" *not* a central tenet of Judaism -- it is an anathema to
the Jewish faith. God doesn't have sex with women. He doesn't get
born as a man. What with him already being maximally everywhere -- it
really would be sort of redundant for him to show up in any one
person.
The Jewish idea of the Messiah does not and never has had any
relationship to the idea of god born as man. The Jewish Messiah is a
messenger -- something akin to an angel, whose arrival portends the
resurrection of the Dead. Nothing whatever to do with any son of god.
Nothing whatever to do with redemption (also completely alien to the
Jewish faith).
You like facts -- get them straight.
> Your question is how does it work, what's the nuts and bolts of it.
> When discussing the supernatural--trying to get down to the nuts and
> bolts, is something that "just doesn't make any sense".
Not at all. It has nothing to do with "nuts and bolts."
Once again, you are attempting to superimpose your own version of what
I said because, finding it easier to reply to, you like it better.
I said that there, is in fact, nothing to "make sense of" -- because,
in fact, the phrase, "Fully God and fully Man" - is meaningless.
There aren't any nuts. There aren't any bolts. There is nothing
against which one can weigh the issue of mystery, or the supernatural,
or god's power.
There's nothing there.
>
> > And to invoke the "Well, since it's god, god transcends our mere,
> > mortal "sense" -- well, that doesn't make any sense either.
>
> Now that *is* illogical. Why wouldn't our Creator "transcend our mere,
> mortal 'sense'"? What you say doesn't make any sense. Of course the
> Creator would transcend His creation. It wouldn't make any sense, any
> other way.
I'm not suggesting that your putative god wouldn't be much more clever
that we are.
What I am saying is, you cannot invoke that as a way to jump over an
intrinsically illogical statement.
Illogical statements are devoid of meaning.
God's power doesn't render an illogical statement meaningful.
> > Illogical statements can't be justified by invoking the entities to
> > which they are being applied. That's because the statements never
> > actually *reach* the entities in question.
> >
> > That's because illogical statements have no meaning -- and statements
> > that have no meaning cannot apply to or describe anything at all.
>
> What's illogical is trying to put the supernatural into a physical box.
> What's illogical is saying that an immortal God, our creator *can't*
> "transcend our mere, mortal 'sense'". Exactly the opposite *has* to be
> true. The Creator has to "transcend our mere, mortal 'sense'". It
> can't work any other way. Are you suggesting that a Creator would *have
> to be* equal or more limited then the creation?
>
> > If I were to ask you if god can fribble a jurnistak - and were to
> > establish as a caveat that neither of those words mean anything at all
> > -- they're just nonsense words -- and then ask again -- can god do it
> > -- can he fribble a jurnistak -- I suspect you would reply "no" -- he
> > can't.
>
> No, I would say "speak in English and try to make some sense".
Well, that's exactly what I'm trying to say to you when you say "Fully
God and Fully Man" -- two entities that are in dozens of different
ways mutually exclusive -- just like a cube and a sphere.
Speak English. Try to make some sense.
Because it doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me.
When you say, "Fully cube and fully sphere" -- the burden is upon you
to explain what the hell you are talking about.
> > But why not? Isn't he all powerful? Then why can't he?
>
> Why can't He, what? You have to express yourself coherently, before any
> "logical" conclusions can be made.
Right. So go ahead.
Explain to me, logically, how a single entity can simultaneously
possess "fully* the qualities of two entities that possess mutually
exclusive qualities.
Any two entities.
If you can't -- if the fundamental construction of the statement is
intrinsically illogical -- then it doesn't have any meaning -- and
just because you happen to plug "god" into one of the terms -- it
doesn't suddenly have meaning.
>
> > Because the words don't mean anything. I haven't actually posed a real
> > challenge. I haven't asked a real question. There isn't anything to be
> > done. It's just nonsense syllables. It has nothing to do with the
> > putative power of god. I haven't actually asked anything.
>
> That's right, you've spoken gibberish.
That's right -- and so have you.
Balderdash. It has nothing to do with the supernatural. It has to do
with precisely two things.
Words. Their meaning.
Entity Z is Fully X and Fully Y where X and Y possess mutually
exclusive properties.
I don't give a crap about your supernatural nonsense. Reduced to it's
fundamental level, the statement never reaches anything to do with
god, anything to do with the supernatural -- anything to do with
anything -- because, as a logical construction -- reduced down as it
is above, it never makes any freaking sense to begin with. Plug
anything into it -- it won't make any sense.
And the fact that you think, with just the right X, or just the right
Y, or given just the right mutually exclusive properties, you can make
it work -- it's no different from my saying -- well, gee, you know
Arnold is really strong. Maybe he could lift a color...
If it doesn't make sense reduced to it's basic construction -- then it
never gets to Arnold.
>
> You may call it a cop-out, but the supernatural is by definition
> (literally) above the natural. God is by definition
> supernatural--therefore you have to study God in the context of the
> supernatural. Expecting to quantify Him, to see His color, or weigh
> Him, or measure Him, or shape Him, won't work, and for you to tell me
> this, is at best--obvious. I know God doesn't conform to physical laws.
> He wouldn't be God, if He did.
>
> > The test of the truth of a statement is to apply the statement to its
> > referent.
> >
> > The rock is on the table.
> >
> > You look on the table. There's the rock.
> >
> > The statement is true.
> >
> >
> > But statements devoid of meaning obviously cannot apply to anything.
> > Thus they have no external referents.
>
> And you can't have a coherent discussion of statements that are "devoid
> of meaning". The statement is obviously not "devoid of meaning". The
> meaning is clear. You just can't understand how it could be. Join the
> club.
And always, somehow, the great glorious Explanation of the Theist --
"It can't be explained" - generally followed by a kind of funny grin.
>
> > Thus, intrinsically, they cannot be true.
>
> Gibberish can't be true or false. Something truly "devoid of meaning"
> can't be true or false.
Oh, good. Then we're in agreement.
Try atheism. It really is the only thing that makes any sense. Of
course, there're no holidays and you don't get to live forever and
meet your relatives in the world to come -- but what the heck, it does
have the advantage of being true.
>
> > So you can't go looking outside of such statements for their
> > confirmation. You can't get outside of them at all. Illogical
> > statements are intrinsically, inherently false.
>
> I'm not going outside of anything. I accept that Jesus Christ is fully
> God and is fully man. I understand it's a paradox and a mystery. I
> have faith.
>
> > It's not my fault. It's just the way it is.
>
> From your frame of reference--you won't see it any other way. But that
> doesn't make your beliefs logical or rational. It's illogical, even for
> someone who doesn't believe in God, to infer that the Creator couldn't
> transcend the creation. It's illogical, even for someone who doesn't
> believe in God, to attempt to apply natural constraints on a
> supernatural being.
It isn't possible for anything to "transcend" logic any more than it's
possible for somebody to fraglify a gropnick -- because illogical
statements, like nonsense statements -- irrespective of how long or
short or how many or how few words I try to explain it to you -- still
don't mean anything.
NMS
Joe Myers
brain.
A God of my understanding doesn't fit the job requirements.
Religion is metaphor.
God is a verb.
Joe Myers
"Cue the offertory."
"nmstevens" <nmst...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:a8f80314.03070...@posting.google.com...
Lars J. Aas
nmstevens <nmst...@msn.com> wrote:
> It wouldn't make any difference how strong you were -- because the
> term -- to lift a color -- doesn't mean anything -- it presumes that
In watercolor painting, "lifting color" is actually a meaningful term :)
Of course, what it means is that you lift the *pigments* off the paper,
not the "abstract color" as you specified.
> Because it is meaningless to speak of lifting a color, it describes
> nothing that *can* be done. Not by me, you, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or
> god.
You're absolutely sure Arnold can't do it?
Lars J
--
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away. -- PKD
Paulo Joe Jingy
And you don't think "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man" fulfills
the requirements to be called a paradox? Take a look at the definition
of paradox.
par·a·dox
n.
1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true:
the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: “The
silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung
in my ears” (Mary Shelley).
3. An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based
on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
4. A statement contrary to received opinion.
and
mys·ter·y
n. pl. mys·ter·ies
1. One that is not fully understood or that baffles or eludes the
understanding; an enigma: How he got in is a mystery.
2. One whose identity is unknown and who arouses curiosity: The
woman in the photograph is a mystery.
3. A mysterious character or quality: a landscape with mystery and
charm.
4. A work of fiction, a drama, or a film dealing with a puzzling crime.
5. The skills, lore, or practices that are peculiar to a particular
activity or group and are regarded as the special province of initiates.
Often used in the plural: the mysteries of Freemasonry; the mysteries of
cooking game.
6. A religious truth that is incomprehensible to reason and knowable
only through divine revelation.
7.
a. An incident from the life of Jesus, especially the
Incarnation, Passion, Crucifixion, or Resurrection, of particular
importance for redemption.
a. One of the 15 incidents from the lives of Jesus or the
Blessed Virgin Mary, such as the Annunciation or the Ascension, serving
in Roman Catholicism as the subject of meditation during recitation of
the rosary.
8.
a. also Mystery One of the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.
b. mysteries The consecrated elements of the Eucharist.
9.
a. A religious cult practicing secret rites to which only
initiates are admitted.
b. A secret rite of such a cult.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
(I beginning to think were picking nits, here.)
> The term *mystery* can be used either in a religious sense -- as rite
> or ritual or a divine occurence or in a secular sense -- as an
> unexplained or inexplicable occurence, but in neither sense does it
> mean the above.
The Catholic Church calls it a mystery. (Maybe they call it a paradox
too, I'm not sure). But the definition of paradox applies.
Interesting--yet in your last message you seemed to want to understand
God, as a physical, natural entity. Maybe that's the problem?
>>>To say that an entity is "fully x" means that it possesses all of the
>>>qualities that define the entity X and lacks none of those qualities
>>>that define X -- and also possesses no qualities that X never
>>>possesses.
>>
>>I agree completely--if you're describing something that exists only in
>>the natural realm. Catholics/Christians are well aware of what you're
>>saying and have been for over two-thousand years.
>
>
> Well, then you should stop tossing around self-contradictory stuff
> that can't possibly exist.
What can't possibly exist?
>>But if you can put God in a box and examine him and figure out what
>>makes Him tick, then He really isn't God, is He? Even though you don't
>>believe in the existence of God--you'll have to admit that *if* God did
>>exist and *if* God did create heaven and earth, He would be above the
>>natural laws that He created.
>
>
> But clearly, god cannot possibly be above the laws by which *he*
> functions - and he must function according to some sort of internal
> constants. If I think - lift up and move that rock over there, my arm
> reaches out, my hand folds around the rock -- and I lift up the rock.
Why would would you think an infinite God would *have* to function under
finite laws?
> If god thinks, "create that world" -- the world comes into being -- by
> some means or other. Thus the mechanism, internal to god, presumably,
> by which that thought of god becomes actualized, must be fixed and
> constant.
Why would you think that? Think of the word "omnipotent".
om·nip·o·tent
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
I can understand *not* believing in God. I can't understand proposing
that if God existed He would have to be a *limited* God. That's a
contradiction.
> It cannot just dance around -- be one thing one instant and
> something totally different the next. If that were the case, then God
> might wish to make an elephant one instant and end up with an elephant
> and might want to make an elephant the next instant and come up with a
> wildebeeste. And god, obviously, cannot be the one that "makes" those
> internal constants be the way they are -- because he would need those
> "internal constants" to *be* constant in order to be able to do things
> like, well, to make his own internal constants be constant.
>
> Thus, in order to be able to do things like think, act, function at
> all, any being -- including god, needs to exist within a nexus of
> constants that permit actions to proceed in an orderly way -- that
> allow things like thoughts and actions and creations to occur. And the
> things that exist within that nexus can't have created the nexus --
> because you need to exist within a nexus of constants in order to be
> able to do things like think, "Gee, I think I'll creat a nexus of
> constants," and then exercise your limitless powers to create a nexus
> of constants."
You will never understand the concept of God, if you keep trying to
apply physical, natural restrictions to an omnipotent, supernatural being.
> You might be able to generate a truly lovely realm of natural laws and
> constants for somebody else. But you can't do it for yourself. The
> realm of your own natural laws has to already be there, with you in
> it, in order for you to be able to exist and function.
Are you talking about God or me? God creates, I live within His
creation. God is supernatural and omnipotent. I am not.
> It's just one of those odd little problems that theists brush under
> the rug by yelling "Transcendental!" in a very loud voice.
I think it's more of problem for Atheists, actually.
>>>Well, lets see -- among those qualities that define the entity: Man --
>>>
>>> -- imperfect, occupies a finite physical space, capable of evil,
>>>limited mental capacity.
>>>
>>> - thus any entity that is "fully" man -- must fully possess those
>>>defining qualities.
>>
>>
>>
>>>-- among those qualities that define the putative entity: God --
>>>
>>> -- Perfect, occupies an infinite, limitless environment outside of
>>>space and time, incapable of evil, all knowing.
>>>
>>>-- any entity which is "fully" God must fully possess those defining
>>>qualities --
>>>
>>>-- thus --
>>>
>>>fully perfect and imperfect.
>>>
>>>fully capable of evil and incapable of evil.
>>>
>>>etc., etc., etc., etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm sorry -- it just doesn't make any sense.
>>
>>That's why Catholics call it a mystery. But just because we don't
>>understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't make any sense. Even in the
>>natural world people use tools they don't understand, every day. That
>>only means they don't understand it, it doesn't mean "it just doesn't
>>make any sense".
>
>
> So far as I can see, this is no different from finding a page of
> equations somewhere in the New Testament reading, "And the Lord
> sayeth, 1+1=3 and 2+2=5" and you reply, "Well, God is transcendent --
> it's a mystery."
Why not just stick with what we are talking about. "Jesus Christ is
fully God and fully man".
Look--it's pretty simple, really. If an omnipotent God doesn't exist,
then it's impossible. If an omnipotent God does exist then anything is
possible.
You can argue that this or that doesn't fit in the box of natural laws
until you're blue in the face. But that doesn't apply to the
supernatural. You attempt the impossible and you ask me to do the same.
You want God explained by natural means--forget it--it'll never
happen. It can't happen. There's no point in trying to make it happen.
> And my reply to you is -- so far as I can see, there is absolutely no
> mystery at all. And there is nothing to transcend.
>
> It doesn't make any difference how wise, powerful, or mysterious god
> is.
>
> 1+1 doesn't equal 3. Period.
> That's simply arithmetic.
>
> And logic makes it equally clear that mutually exclusive terms cannot
> exist within the same set.
No--logic makes it clear that you can't put an omnipotent and
supernatural being into a box. It's also logical that a natural mind
can't understand or compete with a supernatural mind. A created mind is
no match for the mind that created it.
That's only logical.
>>The Incarnation is a central belief of Judaism and Christianity. It's
>>religion, it's faith, the concept is really not that complicated. My
>>children can understand it. "God came down to earth, was born of a
>>women and became man".
>
>
>
> You love to toss around the word "fact" -- not only is the
> "incarnation" *not* a central tenet of Judaism -- it is an anathema to
> the Jewish faith. God doesn't have sex with women. He doesn't get
> born as a man. What with him already being maximally everywhere -- it
> really would be sort of redundant for him to show up in any one
> person.
>
> The Jewish idea of
the Messiah does not and never has had any
> relationship to the idea of god born as man. The Jewish Messiah is a
> messenger -- something akin to an angel, whose arrival portends the
> resurrection of the Dead. Nothing whatever to do with any son of god.
> Nothing whatever to do with redemption (also completely alien to the
> Jewish faith).
>
> You like facts -- get them straight.
Here some facts--right from the Bible. You tell me if they're straight.
Isaias 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
Matthew 1:18-23
Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary
was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with
child, of the Holy Ghost. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just
man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away
privately. But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of
the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David,
fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in
her, is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son: and thou
shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke
by the prophet, saying: Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring
forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.
Gee--maybe I do have my facts straight, after all. Correct me, if I'm
wrong, but doesn't Isaias prophecy the Incarnation? Emmanuel: "God is
with us". And I believe Isaias (or Isaiah) was written by an Israelite
of the Jewish faith.
>>Your question is how does it work, what's the nuts and bolts of it.
>>When discussing the supernatural--trying to get down to the nuts and
>>bolts, is something that "just doesn't make any sense".
>
>
> Not at all. It has nothing to do with "nuts and bolts."
>
> Once again, you are attempting to superimpose your own version of what
> I said because, finding it easier to reply to, you like it better.
>
> I said that there, is in fact, nothing to "make sense of" -- because,
> in fact, the phrase, "Fully God and fully Man" - is meaningless.
>
> There aren't any nuts. There aren't any bolts. There is nothing
> against which one can weigh the issue of mystery, or the supernatural,
> or god's power.
>
> There's nothing there.
Of course it's not meaningless. It clearly has meaning. You don't
believe in God--fine. You don't understand how this could work, from a
natural viewpoint--fine. That's because it can't work from a natural
viewpoint. But don't try to say it's meaningless. You clearly
understand the meaning. The meaning is this: Jesus Christ is fully God
and fully man. It's a mystery--a paradox. You understand that--that's
why you object to it.
And this whole discussion is getting circular. I think we both
understand where the other is coming from. Is there really much point
in going on with this?
>>>And to invoke the "Well, since it's god, god transcends our mere,
>>>mortal "sense" -- well, that doesn't make any sense either.
>>
>>Now that *is* illogical. Why wouldn't our Creator "transcend our mere,
>>mortal 'sense'"? What you say doesn't make any sense. Of course the
>>Creator would transcend His creation. It wouldn't make any sense, any
>>other way.
>
>
> I'm not suggesting that your putative god wouldn't be much more clever
> that we are.
>
> What I am saying is, you cannot invoke that as a way to jump over an
> intrinsically illogical statement.
>
> Illogical statements are devoid of meaning.
>
> God's power doesn't render an illogical statement meaningful.
The statement: "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man" definitely has
meaning. There is no doubt about that. It is illogical to say that it
doesn't.
>>>Illogical statements can't be justified by invoking the entities to
>>>which they are being applied. That's because the statements never
>>>actually *reach* the entities in question.
>>>
>>>That's because illogical statements have no meaning -- and statements
>>>that have no meaning cannot apply to or describe anything at all.
>>
>>What's illogical is trying to put the supernatural into a physical box.
>> What's illogical is saying that an immortal God, our creator *can't*
>>"transcend our mere, mortal 'sense'". Exactly the opposite *has* to be
>>true. The Creator has to "transcend our mere, mortal 'sense'". It
>>can't work any other way. Are you suggesting that a Creator would *have
>>to be* equal or more limited then the creation?
>>
>>
>>>If I were to ask you if god can fribble a jurnistak - and were to
>>>establish as a caveat that neither of those words mean anything at all
>>>-- they're just nonsense words -- and then ask again -- can god do it
>>>-- can he fribble a jurnistak -- I suspect you would reply "no" -- he
>>>can't.
>>
>>No, I would say "speak in English and try to make some sense".
>
>
>
> Well, that's exactly what I'm trying to say to you when you say "Fully
> God and Fully Man" -- two entities that are in dozens of different
> ways mutually exclusive -- just like a cube and a sphere.
You see--you just used concrete terms. You said that two entities are
mutually exclusive. You clearly described the paradox (or mystery if
you prefer). You couldn't have done that if the statement had *no*
meaning.
> Speak English. Try to make some sense.
>
> Because it doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me.
Nonsense--you just described (in English) what the paradox is. (Fully
God and fully man *are* mutually exclusive). Yes--I agree. You need to
give yourself more credit--you *really* have gotten it.
> When you say, "Fully cube and fully sphere" -- the burden is upon you
> to explain what the hell you are talking about.
Why not stay with "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man?" And it's
crystal clear what I'm talking about. It has been talked about for
thousands of years. It's the Incarnation. It's a paradox. It's a
mystery.
>>>But why not? Isn't he all powerful? Then why can't he?
>>
>>Why can't He, what? You have to express yourself coherently, before any
>>"logical" conclusions can be made.
>
>
> Right. So go ahead.
>
> Explain to me, logically, how a single entity can simultaneously
> possess "fully* the qualities of two entities that possess mutually
> exclusive qualities.
You're still trying to apply the nuts and bolts of a natural entity to a
supernatural God. I don't have to explain it. I can't explain it.
It's supernatural. It's a paradox. It's a mystery. How many times do
I have to say the same thing? I can fully understand that if you don't
believe in God--you won't believe in the Incarnation. That's obvious.
> Any two entities.
>
> If you can't -- if the fundamental construction of the statement is
> intrinsically illogical -- then it doesn't have any meaning -- and
> just because you happen to plug "god" into one of the terms -- it
> doesn't suddenly have meaning.
No--the statement is perfectly logical. "Jesus Christ is fully God and
fully man". We just don't understand it. We don't have the capability
to understand it. God is omnipotent. That means He can anything he
wants. That doesn't mean He *can't* do it *until*, we, His creation,
understand *exactly* what it is He's doing.
>>>Because the words don't mean anything. I haven't actually posed a real
>>>challenge. I haven't asked a real question. There isn't anything to be
>>>done. It's just nonsense syllables. It has nothing to do with the
>>>putative power of god. I haven't actually asked anything.
>>
>>That's right, you've spoken gibberish.
>
>
> That's right -- and so have you.
Care to provide an example? Maybe it's your lack of understanding,
which makes it *seem* like gibberish to you. (And when I said you have
spoken gibberish--it was not intended as an insult. I was referring to
the words that you intended to be gibberish).
Is it really possible that you are unable to understand the *concept* of
an omnipotent, supreme being? (Notice--I didn't say you have to accept
the *concept* of an omnipotent, supreme being). Just understand it.
One more time.
om·nip·o·tent
adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
Do you see wiggle any room there? Do you see any exclusions? Do you
see any limits? Do you see any loopholes? Do you see any equivocation?
Wouldn't you say that at least in theory an *all-powerful* God could
be "fully God and fully man"? I mean when you consider the fact that He
has "unlimited power"?
> I don't give a crap about your supernatural nonsense.
Right there. That's it. You're a writer--put yourself in someone
else's shoes--imagine that you believe in the supernatural. Imagine an
omnipotent being. Now tell me--what are the limits of an omnipotent God?
Are you trying--c'mon, really trying? Well if you were--you could see
that trying to limit an omnipotent being is illogical.
> Reduced to it's
> fundamental level, the statement never reaches anything to do with
> god, anything to do with the supernatural -- anything to do with
> anything -- because, as a logical construction -- reduced down as it
> is above, it never makes any freaking sense to begin with. Plug
> anything into it -- it won't make any sense.
If you really, really believe that it doesn't make any sense. Stop
trying to analyze it--just say it doesn't make any sense, to you, and be
done with it.
> And the fact that you think, with just the right X, or just the right
> Y, or given just the right mutually exclusive properties, you can make
> it work -- it's no different from my saying -- well, gee, you know
> Arnold is really strong. Maybe he could lift a color...
>
> If it doesn't make sense reduced to it's basic construction -- then it
> never gets to Arnold.
You see--this is stuff that doesn't make any sense.
>>You may call it a cop-out, but the supernatural is by definition
>>(literally) above the natural. God is by definition
>>supernatural--therefore you have to study God in the context of the
>>supernatural. Expecting to quantify Him, to see His color, or weigh
>>Him, or measure Him, or shape Him, won't work, and for you to tell me
>>this, is at best--obvious. I know God doesn't conform to physical laws.
>> He wouldn't be God, if He did.
>>
>>
>>>The test of the truth of a statement is to apply the statement to its
>>>referent.
>>>
>>>The rock is on the table.
>>>
>>>You look on the table. There's the rock.
>>>
>>>The statement is true.
>>>
>>>
>>>But statements devoid of meaning obviously cannot apply to anything.
>>>Thus they have no external referents.
>>
>>And you can't have a coherent discussion of statements that are "devoid
>>of meaning". The statement is obviously not "devoid of meaning". The
>>meaning is clear. You just can't understand how it could be. Join the
>>club.
>
>
> And always, somehow, the great glorious Explanation of the Theist --
> "It can't be explained" - generally followed by a kind of funny grin.
Well, duh! (But I'm not grinning--really). As I said originally you
can't put the supernatural in a natural box. You can't disassemble God
and describe His parts. If that were true, He wouldn't be God. That's
obvious and logical. It can't be any other way.
C'mon, Neal, try to use some logic. Even an Atheist (or whatever)
should be able to understand the idiocy of man (a created being) trying
to explain the inner-workings, the mysteries and the mind of an
omnipotent God (the Creator).
Let's just look at what *we* can understand. I'll try to make it simple.
God (if He exists) is omnipotent. If God is exists, He can do
*anything* He wants. This *anything* includes being "fully God and
fully man". Isn't that logical?
>>>Thus, intrinsically, they cannot be true.
>>
>>Gibberish can't be true or false. Something truly "devoid of meaning"
>>can't be true or false.
>
>
> Oh, good. Then we're in agreement.
Only if you *meant* to say that "gibberish" or something truly "devoid
of meaning" *also* can't be false.
> Try atheism. It really is the only thing that makes any sense. Of
> course, there're no holidays and you don't get to live forever and
> meet your relatives in the world to come -- but what the heck, it does
> have the advantage of being true.
How do you know that? No--really--how do you?
>>>So you can't go looking outside of such statements for their
>>>confirmation. You can't get outside of them at all. Illogical
>>>statements are intrinsically, inherently false.
>>
>>I'm not going outside of anything. I accept that Jesus Christ is fully
>>God and is fully man. I understand it's a paradox and a mystery. I
>>have faith.
>>
>>
>>>It's not my fault. It's just the way it is.
>>
>> From your frame of reference--you won't see it any other way. But that
>>doesn't make your beliefs logical or rational. It's illogical, even for
>>someone who doesn't believe in God, to infer that the Creator couldn't
>>transcend the creation. It's illogical, even for someone who doesn't
>>believe in God, to attempt to apply natural constraints on a
>>supernatural being.
>
>
> It isn't possible for anything to "transcend" logic any more than it's
> possible for somebody to fraglify a gropnick -- because illogical
> statements, like nonsense statements -- irrespective of how long or
> short or how many or how few words I try to explain it to you -- still
> don't mean anything.
"And around and around the mulberry bush they go".
Anybody, with an understanding of English, can understand the statement.
"Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man". You obviously have. You
have shown over and over again that you understand the statement. You
don't agree with it, that's hardly surprising to me. I knew that before
this particular discussion began. But don't try to tell me that you
don't understand the statement.
You don't believe in God. So when I say "Jesus Christ is fully God..."
that's were you stop believing. (Wait--you stopped believing when I
said "Jesus Christ...") I almost forgot. Why not just say I don't
believe in God and let it go at that?
And I can say "I do believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully
man", and I can let it go at that.
Because, I have extreme doubts that you'll ever convert to Christianity.
And if you believe that I'll ever become an Atheist... well, then you
believe in miracles, after all.
So--do you see any point in continuing this? Are you really, really
that bored? Whatever--I think I'll get some sleep now. Okay?
-----
Paulo Joe Jingy
Lars J. Aas
Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You can argue that this or that doesn't fit in the box of natural laws
> until you're blue in the face. But that doesn't apply to the
> supernatural. You attempt the impossible and you ask me to do the same.
> You want God explained by natural means--forget it--it'll never
> happen. It can't happen. There's no point in trying to make it happen.
Sure it can happen. How about something like; "The concept of religion
(and in our particular case, God) evolved through the mechanism of
evolution because the concept in itself [through all the stages of
its development] is beneficial to the survival of the individual, and
consequently the species". Then you may have explained God through
natural means. It's not a full explanation since it doesn't explain
exactly how it's beneficial (but it's easy to come up with various
theories to be tossed around on this), but it is good enough for me,
Occam's razor-wise...
> Because, I have extreme doubts that you'll ever convert to Christianity.
> And if you believe that I'll ever become an Atheist... well, then you
> believe in miracles, after all.
>
> So--do you see any point in continuing this?
I'll have to agree to this though ;-)
Lars J
--
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, does not go away. -- PKD
nmstevens
> nmstevens wrote:
> > Paulo Joe Jingy <pauloj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<behu47$5f25f$1...@ID-184733.news.dfncis.de>...
> > Well, then you should stop tossing around self-contradictory stuff
> > that can't possibly exist.
>
> What can't possibly exist?
That which is self-contradictory cannot possibly exist.
Not something which simply appears to be, but which, upon further
examination isn't -- but which, in substance *is* self-contradictory
-- cannot exist.
If you assert that that which is self-contradictory can exist, the
burden is upon you not simply to assert that it can, it seems to to
me, but to demonstrate that it can.
>
> >>But if you can put God in a box and examine him and figure out what
> >>makes Him tick, then He really isn't God, is He? Even though you don't
> >>believe in the existence of God--you'll have to admit that *if* God did
> >>exist and *if* God did create heaven and earth, He would be above the
> >>natural laws that He created.
> >
> >
> > But clearly, god cannot possibly be above the laws by which *he*
> > functions - and he must function according to some sort of internal
> > constants. If I think - lift up and move that rock over there, my arm
> > reaches out, my hand folds around the rock -- and I lift up the rock.
>
> Why would would you think an infinite God would *have* to function under
> finite laws?
>
> > If god thinks, "create that world" -- the world comes into being -- by
> > some means or other. Thus the mechanism, internal to god, presumably,
> > by which that thought of god becomes actualized, must be fixed and
> > constant.
>
> Why would you think that? Think of the word "omnipotent".
>
> om·nip·o·tent
> adj.
>
> Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
>
> I can understand *not* believing in God. I can't understand proposing
> that if God existed He would have to be a *limited* God. That's a
> contradiction.
And I cannot understand what it means to have "unlimited" power.
Does your limitlessly powerful god have the power to destroy himself?
Does your limitlessly powerful god have the power to create another
god more powerful than himself?
Does your limitlessly powerful god have the power to do evil?
And if you answer no to any of those questions, the question
inevitably arises - what power prevents a limitlessly powerful being
from doing any of the above?
And on and on and on -- contradiction after contradiction after
contradiction.
That's why "all-powerful god" is one of those things that goes on the
scrap heap as "self-contradictory" -
that's why "can god create a weight too heavy for himself to lift?" is
one of those funny little embarassing questions that theists don't
like.
Can he?
If not, why not?
If so, what just happens to god's omnipotence?
What happened to is that it it is that it doesn't make any sense when
you look at it closely -- when you look at it as as anything other
than a kind of metaphorical expression.
>
> > It cannot just dance around -- be one thing one instant and
> > something totally different the next. If that were the case, then God
> > might wish to make an elephant one instant and end up with an elephant
> > and might want to make an elephant the next instant and come up with a
> > wildebeeste. And god, obviously, cannot be the one that "makes" those
> > internal constants be the way they are -- because he would need those
> > "internal constants" to *be* constant in order to be able to do things
> > like, well, to make his own internal constants be constant.
> >
> > Thus, in order to be able to do things like think, act, function at
> > all, any being -- including god, needs to exist within a nexus of
> > constants that permit actions to proceed in an orderly way -- that
> > allow things like thoughts and actions and creations to occur. And the
> > things that exist within that nexus can't have created the nexus --
> > because you need to exist within a nexus of constants in order to be
> > able to do things like think, "Gee, I think I'll creat a nexus of
> > constants," and then exercise your limitless powers to create a nexus
> > of constants."
>
> You will never understand the concept of God, if you keep trying to
> apply physical, natural restrictions to an omnipotent, supernatural being.
It doesn't make any difference -- material or immaterial.
God still thinks -- materially or immaterially.
Still acts - materially or immaterially.
Still realizes the consequences of his thoughts - materially or
immaterially.
And so the above, whether in some immaterial extradimensional,
god-stuff environment, still applies.
If god has a thought, he needs to do it in some -- for lack of a
better term -- nexus, some environment, whether you call it a
spiritual environment, or extradimensional envirionment, or whatever
-- where a god-thought can exist - can preserve its shape, its form,
its spiritual substance - and actualize itself into an action that get
from the godmind to us.
No requirement for that to be an environnment like ours -- but it has
to be someplace. It has to be something.
It can't be noplace. It can't be nothing. Unless, like me, you believe
that god, in fact, is no place, and is nothing.
And by the way -- it is you, not me, that keeps saying that god cannot
be understood or comprehended -- so how is it that you assert above
that he can be understood?
And if he can't, how do you know that he is what you assert him to be,
except, really, by some process of subtraction -- you subtract all of
the stuff that he can't be -- because if he were, you'd be able to see
and identify him as being here -- and you can't, because he isn't --
thus he has to be this other kind of invisible, absent stuff,
somewhere else.
>
> > You might be able to generate a truly lovely realm of natural laws and
> > constants for somebody else. But you can't do it for yourself. The
> > realm of your own natural laws has to already be there, with you in
> > it, in order for you to be able to exist and function.
>
> Are you talking about God or me? God creates, I live within His
> creation. God is supernatural and omnipotent. I am not.
God, presumably can exist outside of the universe in which we exist --
but it would be a bit odd to imagine that god can exist outside of the
universe in which *he* exists. Where exactly would he go?
To assert that he is outside our cosmos is one thing -- to assert that
god is likewise outside of himself imposes a rather pretzel-like form
upon the almighty.
How then, and by whose hand was *that* space and that universe created
-- the universe not that encompasses us - but the space occupied by
god -- obviously it couldn't have been him -- because where would he
have stood when he was creating that universe?
So it was just "there" somehow, already fully stocked with all of the
rules and regulations and constants that god needed to permit him to
undertake all the universe creating stuff necessary for making us and
whatever else he had to do?
Boy -- that was sure convenient.
>
> > It's just one of those odd little problems that theists brush under
> > the rug by yelling "Transcendental!" in a very loud voice.
>
> I think it's more of problem for Atheists, actually.
Oh, good -- so what's the solution?
(snip)
(snip)
> >
> > So far as I can see, this is no different from finding a page of
> > equations somewhere in the New Testament reading, "And the Lord
> > sayeth, 1+1=3 and 2+2=5" and you reply, "Well, God is transcendent --
> > it's a mystery."
>
> Why not just stick with what we are talking about. "Jesus Christ is
> fully God and fully man".
What is truly sad is that you fail to see that a logical contradiction
is in no sense different from 1+1=3.
If God is truly all powerful, then there is no reason his infinite
power shouldn't be able to make 1+1=3.
If he has the power to make nonsense make sense, why can't he make
that particular expression of nonsense sensible?
And if god's power stops at that wall -- if, irrespective of how
powerful god may be -- he cannot make nonsense make sense, he cannot
make 1+1=3, then he cannot compel mutually exclusive terms to fit
into the same set.
>
> Look--it's pretty simple, really. If an omnipotent God doesn't exist,
> then it's impossible. If an omnipotent God does exist then anything is
> possible.
That's exactly right -- and since an omnipotent god is intrinsically
self-contradictory -- such a being cannot logically exist.
And thus, as you say, what you propose, likewise being impossible,
also cannot exist.
You simply seek to justify one impossibility by invoking another.
You're right -- that was simple.
Simply nonsense.
>
> You can argue that this or that doesn't fit in the box of natural laws
> until you're blue in the face. But that doesn't apply to the
> supernatural. You attempt the impossible and you ask me to do the same.
> You want God explained by natural means--forget it--it'll never
> happen. It can't happen. There's no point in trying to make it happen.
>
> > And my reply to you is -- so far as I can see, there is absolutely no
> > mystery at all. And there is nothing to transcend.
> >
> > It doesn't make any difference how wise, powerful, or mysterious god
> > is.
> >
> > 1+1 doesn't equal 3. Period.
>
> > That's simply arithmetic.
> >
> > And logic makes it equally clear that mutually exclusive terms cannot
> > exist within the same set.
>
> No--logic makes it clear that you can't put an omnipotent and
> supernatural being into a box. It's also logical that a natural mind
> can't understand or compete with a supernatural mind. A created mind is
> no match for the mind that created it.
>
> That's only logical.
You clearly have no idea what logic is.
Logic is a process by which the necessary consequences of unambiguous
statements may be parsed out.
There are no unambigous statements in the above -- so nothing, logical
or otherwise, can be parsed out of them.
>
> >>The Incarnation is a central belief of Judaism and Christianity. It's
> >>religion, it's faith, the concept is really not that complicated. My
> >>children can understand it. "God came down to earth, was born of a
> >>women and became man".
> >
> >
> >
> > You love to toss around the word "fact" -- not only is the
> > "incarnation" *not* a central tenet of Judaism -- it is an anathema to
> > the Jewish faith. God doesn't have sex with women. He doesn't get
> > born as a man. What with him already being maximally everywhere -- it
> > really would be sort of redundant for him to show up in any one
> > person.
> >
> > The Jewish idea of
>
> the Messiah does not and never has had any
> > relationship to the idea of god born as man. The Jewish Messiah is a
> > messenger -- something akin to an angel, whose arrival portends the
> > resurrection of the Dead. Nothing whatever to do with any son of god.
> > Nothing whatever to do with redemption (also completely alien to the
> > Jewish faith).
> >
> > You like facts -- get them straight.
>
> Here some facts--right from the Bible. You tell me if they're straight.
>
> Isaias 7:14
> Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall
> conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.
That's right -- and then the prophecy continues -- and goes on to talk
about the fall -- of the King of Assyria -- which of course we all
vividly recall happening in the first century A.D.
>
> Matthew 1:18-23
> Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary
> was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with
> child, of the Holy Ghost. Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just
> man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away
> privately. But while he thought on these things, behold the Angel of
> the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David,
> fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in
> her, is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son: and thou
> shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins.
> Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke
> by the prophet, saying: Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring
> forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being
> interpreted is, God with us.
>
> Gee--maybe I do have my facts straight, after all. Correct me, if I'm
> wrong, but doesn't Isaias prophecy the Incarnation? Emmanuel: "God is
> with us". And I believe Isaias (or Isaiah) was written by an Israelite
> of the Jewish faith.
Yeah -- the mining of the Old Testament for all of those "prophecies"
of Jesus' coming constitutes some of the biggest stretches in all of
the New Testament.
The book really would have been better if they'd left them out.
>
> >>Your question is how does it work, what's the nuts and bolts of it.
> >>When discussing the supernatural--trying to get down to the nuts and
> >>bolts, is something that "just doesn't make any sense".
> >
> >
> > Not at all. It has nothing to do with "nuts and bolts."
> >
> > Once again, you are attempting to superimpose your own version of what
> > I said because, finding it easier to reply to, you like it better.
> > > > I said that there, is in fact, nothing to "make sense of" -- because,
> > in fact, the phrase, "Fully God and fully Man" - is meaningless.
> >
> > There aren't any nuts. There aren't any bolts. There is nothing
> > against which one can weigh the issue of mystery, or the supernatural,
> > or god's power.
> >
> > There's nothing there.
>
> Of course it's not meaningless. It clearly has meaning. You don't
> believe in God--fine. You don't understand how this could work, from a
> natural viewpoint--fine. That's because it can't work from a natural
> viewpoint. But don't try to say it's meaningless. You clearly
> understand the meaning. The meaning is this: Jesus Christ is fully God
> and fully man. It's a mystery--a paradox. You understand that--that's
> why you object to it.
And explain this again. You start off with one, and then you add
another one and then you get three -- it's perfectly clear. You
understand every little thing about it. There one, and then there's a
plus, and there's another one, and there an equal, and then there's a
three. You just can't understand it because you can't work it out from
a natural viewpoint. But don't try to say it's meaningless. The
meaning is this. One plus one is fully three. It's a mystery. A
paradox.
You understand that -- that's why you object to it.
Right.
>
> And this whole discussion is getting circular. I think we both
> understand where the other is coming from. Is there really much point
> in going on with this?
I fully understand it.
Reasonable positions can be defended reasonably.
But ultimately, unreasonable positions can only be defended
unreasonably.
>
> >>>And to invoke the "Well, since it's god, god transcends our mere,
> >>>mortal "sense" -- well, that doesn't make any sense either.
> >>
> >>Now that *is* illogical. Why wouldn't our Creator "transcend our mere,
> >>mortal 'sense'"? What you say doesn't make any sense. Of course the
> >>Creator would transcend His creation. It wouldn't make any sense, any
> >>other way.
> >
> >
> > I'm not suggesting that your putative god wouldn't be much more clever
> > that we are.
> >
> > What I am saying is, you cannot invoke that as a way to jump over an
> > intrinsically illogical statement.
> >
> > Illogical statements are devoid of meaning.
> >
> > God's power doesn't render an illogical statement meaningful.
>
> The statement: "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man" definitely has
> meaning. There is no doubt about that. It is illogical to say that it
> doesn't.
And once again, you demonstrate that you do not know what "logic"
means.
(snip)
> > Well, that's exactly what I'm trying to say to you when you say "Fully
> > God and Fully Man" -- two entities that are in dozens of different
> > ways mutually exclusive -- just like a cube and a sphere.
>
> You see--you just used concrete terms. You said that two entities are
> mutually exclusive. You clearly described the paradox (or mystery if
> you prefer). You couldn't have done that if the statement had *no*
> meaning.
I always tell people that it's dangerous to play stupid when they're
arguing -- because then the people they are arguing with may actually
come to be convinced that they are stupid.
The terms "Man" and the terms "God" clearly have distinct and
individual meanings.
Just as the terms "sphere" and "cube" have distinct and individual
meanings.
But to say, "I have here an object that is "fully cube" and "fully
sphere," is meaningless despite the fact that each indivual word is
clearly defined because the sentence, as a whole describes nothing
coherent.
An object capable of fully possessing the qualities of cube and sphere
is a contradiction in terms. No such object can exist. Thus I could
not possibly possess such an object.
Were I to have written, "God gave me an object that is "fully cube"
and "fully sphere" -- wouldn't suddenly elevate the sentence to the
level of sense.
The addition of god doesn't suddenly mean that the words have taken on
a different meaning. There still is no such object.
That makes the sentence, as whole, not false -- but meaningless. It
describes nothing that could happen, that could be real. It pretends
to a referent that could not possibly exist.
And the same is true for any two mutually exclusive defined entities.
>
> > Speak English. Try to make some sense.
> >
> > Because it doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me.
>
> Nonsense--you just described (in English) what the paradox is. (Fully
> God and fully man *are* mutually exclusive). Yes--I agree. You need to
> give yourself more credit--you *really* have gotten it.
>
> > When you say, "Fully cube and fully sphere" -- the burden is upon you
> > to explain what the hell you are talking about.
>
> Why not stay with "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man?" And it's
> crystal clear what I'm talking about. It has been talked about for
> thousands of years. It's the Incarnation. It's a paradox. It's a
> mystery.
>
> >>>But why not? Isn't he all powerful? Then why can't he?
> >>
> >>Why can't He, what? You have to express yourself coherently, before any
> >>"logical" conclusions can be made.
> >
> >
> > Right. So go ahead.
> >
> > Explain to me, logically, how a single entity can simultaneously
> > possess "fully* the qualities of two entities that possess mutually
> > exclusive qualities.
>
> You're still trying to apply the nuts and bolts of a natural entity to a
> supernatural God. I don't have to explain it. I can't explain it.
> It's supernatural. It's a paradox. It's a mystery. How many times do
> I have to say the same thing? I can fully understand that if you don't
> believe in God--you won't believe in the Incarnation. That's obvious.
Simply coming up with a nice name for something that doesn't make any
sense doesn't suddenly cause it make sense.
And the fact that a couple hundred generations of "true believers"
have given themselves permission to not have to explain a central
tenet of their faith which is fundamentally gibberish doesn't mean
that I have to accept it.
Maybe the reason you haven't come up with a solution to this "mystery"
after two thousand years is because it just never made any sense in
the first place -- because it was just incoherent.
>
> > Any two entities.
> >
> > If you can't -- if the fundamental construction of the statement is
> > intrinsically illogical -- then it doesn't have any meaning -- and
> > just because you happen to plug "god" into one of the terms -- it
> > doesn't suddenly have meaning.
>
> No--the statement is perfectly logical. "Jesus Christ is fully God and
> fully man". We just don't understand it. We don't have the capability
> to understand it. God is omnipotent. That means He can anything he
> wants. That doesn't mean He *can't* do it *until*, we, His creation,
> understand *exactly* what it is He's doing.
If you don't understand it, then how do you know that it's logical?
That is simply gobledygook. Oh, I'm sorry -- I mean "faith."
You may state, as an expression of your faith, that words which make
no sense, actually make sense.
That's fine. That's your privilege.
But for those of us not so brainwashed -- all we have are the words.
And we are bound to treat them no differently then we would treat any
other set of comparable words.
And so treating them -- they are most assuredly *not* logical. They
are self-contradictory.
>
> >>>Because the words don't mean anything. I haven't actually posed a real
> >>>challenge. I haven't asked a real question. There isn't anything to be
> >>>done. It's just nonsense syllables. It has nothing to do with the
> >>>putative power of god. I haven't actually asked anything.
> >>
> >>That's right, you've spoken gibberish.
> >
> >
> > That's right -- and so have you.
>
> Care to provide an example? Maybe it's your lack of understanding,
> which makes it *seem* like gibberish to you. (And when I said you have
> spoken gibberish--it was not intended as an insult. I was referring to
> the words that you intended to be gibberish).
When you say that a single entity possesses fully the qualities of two
entities that possess mutually exclusive qualities -- that's
gibberish.
It doesn't make any difference how powerful god is.
If he's infinitely powerful, why can't he create an object that's
fully round and fully cubical?
If he can create a being that's fully human and fully god -- why not
that?
(snip)
> > Balderdash. It has nothing to do with the supernatural. It has to do
> > with precisely two things.
> >
> > Words. Their meaning.
>
> > Entity Z is Fully X and Fully Y where X and Y possess mutually
> > exclusive properties.
>
> Is it really possible that you are unable to understand the *concept* of
> an omnipotent, supreme being? (Notice--I didn't say you have to accept
> the *concept* of an omnipotent, supreme being). Just understand it.
>
> One more time.
>
> om·nip·o·tent
> adj.
>
> Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
>
> Do you see wiggle any room there? Do you see any exclusions? Do you
> see any limits? Do you see any loopholes? Do you see any equivocation?
> Wouldn't you say that at least in theory an *all-powerful* God could
> be "fully God and fully man"? I mean when you consider the fact that He
> has "unlimited power"?
Well, then, why can't your god, with his unlimited power, grelb my
framblgrimp?
Why can't he brable all the little gringes?
Whe can't he recall all the lost frangles?
Why is it that you are able to fully comprehend that the limitless
power of god hits a brick wall when the proposition in question is
devoid of meaning by virtue of the individual word or words having no
meaning -- but seem absolutely at a loss to understand that, in
precisely the same way, god's limitless power would likewise hit the
exact same brick wall if the *usage* of the words were to render the
sentence or phrase *as a whole* devoid of meaning.
Would you not agree with that?
>
> > I don't give a crap about your supernatural nonsense.
>
> Right there. That's it. You're a writer--put yourself in someone
> else's shoes--imagine that you believe in the supernatural. Imagine an
> omnipotent being. Now tell me--what are the limits of an omnipotent God?
Well, presuming that, for a moment, I ignored the logical difficulties
of omnipotence in itself, I would have to say this --
-- an omnipotent being would be one that would have the power to
render any coherent statement real.
So -- Bring my dead brother back to life -- can do.
World War II never happened -- can do.
Make the speed of light sixteen miles an hour -- can do.
Make pine trees smarter than people -- can do.
Everyone now goes to heaven except people I don't like -- can do.
But I do not believe that such a being would be able to accomplish
incoherent statements -- those I think would still stand as genuine
limits - because what would the omnipotent god do when I say --
Right, -- now make a rock too heavy for you to lift.
Now lift it.
Because, being a wise guy, I would have to do it.
And I don't know what the outcome would be -- because I don't know how
any being can somehow encompass a genuine contradiction.
But, of course -- the reality is -- I don't believe that such
statements, in fact, have reached the limits of "god's power." I think
they have simply bumped up against the intrinisic incoherence of the
idea of omnipotence.
In the same token, however lightly you may choose to toss around words
like "limitless power" -- even you realize, on some level, that it
isn't truly limitless -- it must be limited, at least, by coherence. A
proposed "thing to be done" must, in order to be doable, at least, be
coherently proposed. If it's gibberish, or nonsense, then it doesn't
rise to the level of a genuine proposition -- thus, nothing has truly
been proposed for god to do.
>
> Are you trying--c'mon, really trying? Well if you were--you could see
> that trying to limit an omnipotent being is illogical.
Then let's pull out all the stops and let god start grelbing.
>
> > Reduced to it's
> > fundamental level, the statement never reaches anything to do with
> > god, anything to do with the supernatural -- anything to do with
> > anything -- because, as a logical construction -- reduced down as it
> > is above, it never makes any freaking sense to begin with. Plug
> > anything into it -- it won't make any sense.
>
> If you really, really believe that it doesn't make any sense. Stop
> trying to analyze it--just say it doesn't make any sense, to you, and be
> done with it.
No, subjectification is your escape valve, not mine.
(snip)
(snip)
> >
> > And always, somehow, the great glorious Explanation of the Theist --
> > "It can't be explained" - generally followed by a kind of funny grin.
>
> Well, duh! (But I'm not grinning--really). As I said originally you
> can't put the supernatural in a natural box. You can't disassemble God
> and describe His parts. If that were true, He wouldn't be God. That's
> obvious and logical. It can't be any other way.
>
> C'mon, Neal, try to use some logic. Even an Atheist (or whatever)
> should be able to understand the idiocy of man (a created being) trying
> to explain the inner-workings, the mysteries and the mind of an
> omnipotent God (the Creator).
>
> Let's just look at what *we* can understand. I'll try to make it simple.
>
> God (if He exists) is omnipotent. If God is exists, He can do
> *anything* He wants. This *anything* includes being "fully God and
> fully man". Isn't that logical?
You see, that's the problem -- you want to try to get out of this
problem by resorting to explaining god, who by your own declaration,
is altogether inexplicable in any case.
I, on the other hand, am not in the least interested in invoking god
-- because I don't believe, in this case, that questions of god's
power are relevant.
Questions of god's power or god's intentions only come in if the
sentence embodies a coherent proposition. The question that needs to
be determined first, is whether a particular sentence is coherent.
Because if the sentence in question is not coherent, then it seems to
me, the qualities or lack thereof of god don't enter into the matter -
because if the sentence is not coherent, it expresses no proposition.
>
> >>>Thus, intrinsically, they cannot be true.
> >>
> >>Gibberish can't be true or false. Something truly "devoid of meaning"
> >>can't be true or false.
> >
> >
> > Oh, good. Then we're in agreement.
>
> Only if you *meant* to say that "gibberish" or something truly "devoid
> of meaning" *also* can't be false.
Well -- when one hasn't actually said anything -- that is, you haven't
really stated a proposition, I supposed one cannot assert that you've
made a statement either true or false.
You really haven't made a statement at all.
>
> > Try atheism. It really is the only thing that makes any sense. Of
> > course, there're no holidays and you don't get to live forever and
> > meet your relatives in the world to come -- but what the heck, it does
> > have the advantage of being true.
>
> How do you know that? No--really--how do you?
"Know" with a capital K? I don't. But then, I generally don't claim to
"know" anything that way. But it is the overwhelmingly likely
conclusion. It asks the least of the universe. It invokes the fewest
evidenceless terms. It is, by far, the simplest construction you can
place upon the cosmos. It demands no answers beyond those that decent
physical evidence gives us, though that may not always be emotionally
satisfying. And the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests that we
live in a very very large, very very old cosmos that arose from
minimally simple origins. The purpose of explanations is to simplify
rather than complicate -- and I can't think of anything that invoking
an intelligent invisible creator of a minimally simple universe does
not serve to complicate rather than simplify. I have not seen any
model of god that Occam's razor has not neatly cut out of my view of
the universe. It is not "Knowledge" with a Capital K -- but it is a
reasonable inference, which, barring some new dramatic information,
will likely stand the test of time.
You fail completely to understand my objections in this case.
Were the statement to have said, "Jesus Christ is Partly God and
Partly Man" -- or simply "Both God and Man" -- irrespective of my
particular beliefs, I wouldn't have any objection to it, in the sense
of it being contradictory.
But "fully god and fully man" is a contradiction in terms -- and
invoking the power of god, or the mystery of god -- or what have you
-- doesn't resolve a contradiction in terms -- because the problem
doesn't have anything to do with god -- the problem has to do with the
terms.
>
> And I can say "I do believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully
> man", and I can let it go at that.
>
> Because, I have extreme doubts that you'll ever convert to Christianity.
> And if you believe that I'll ever become an Atheist... well, then you
> believe in miracles, after all.
>
> So--do you see any point in continuing this? Are you really, really
> that bored? Whatever--I think I'll get some sleep now. Okay?
Okay. Nighty-night.
NMS
ProdInAHat
news:a8f80314.03071...@posting.google.com:
>> So--do you see any point in continuing this? Are you really, really
>> that bored? Whatever--I think I'll get some sleep now. Okay?
>
>
> Okay. Nighty-night.
What, no wombat?!