Who Hates Academic Freedom?
- Thread starter 6days
- Start date
6days
New member
John 10:9 I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.
John14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
Compare:
John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
Ex. 3:14 God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
Also:
Mark 14:61,62 Jesus claims divinity referring to Himself from prophecy. He said "you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven " Caiaphas knew Jesus was claiming Himself to be "the Son of Man" who would come "on the clouds of heaven" from Daniel 7:13-14. Jesus had just claimed that He was the preexistent Sovereign of the Universe ....who would one day judge Caiaphas and the court that was now condemning Him.
noguru
Well-known member
The Bible is recorded wisdom from that time period and historical context. I don't need some whacked out Asian lady telling me what to think, sorry.
I noticed most JW and related cults followers are uneducated, not interested in history. The translators of the New World Translations Bible don't even know both greek nor hebrew and they even eliminated entire verses. They're hillbilly cults and grew up not knowing better. Teaching old dogs new tricks don't work. Don't bother with meshak. I don't mind the hat jokes others leave but it's really to cover up her lobotomy scars on her forehead.
6days
New member
Christ bothered with Meshak, going to the cross for her. If Christ loved her that much... I think we too should care about her( and others).
noguru
Well-known member
Loving someone does not mean you have to agree with everything they say. You can love people and still have a different opinion.
We don't know if she is elected. We don't know if God bothered to give meshak to Jesus. Meshak is only doing her natural thing. Her thing is not obeying Jesus which gives us a clue God might not have drawn her. We'll see
Dialogos
Well-known member
I wouldn't know what to expect from a universe without a God anymore than you would know what to expect from a universe without gravity.
Gravity is a force that impacts literally everything in the physical universe and without gravity the universe as we know it would not exist if our current understanding of physics is in any way correct.
In the same way, without God, the universe as we know it would not exist.
I await your responses.
Those powerful metaphors all come from John, which is theological and mystical but does not really reflect "real life" during the time of Jesus. In fact, the consensus is that John was written in at least the 90s and shows a very developed Christology.
Going back into their own Hebrew Bible, the gospel writers (especially Matthew) put ancient quotes and situations back in to Jesus' own life.
"Son of man" means "Son of Adam," or merely "human being."
Jesus, as far as I can tell, never says he was the pre-existent Sovereign of the universe."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Guy, if you haven't noticed, I see the Bible as a diverse blend of remembered history, mythology, legend, theology and oral traditions.
In my view, the Bible is a collection of writings by inspired authors who explained the Sacred (Yahweh, Elohim, Jesus' life on earth, etc.) filtered through their own historical situation that they were living in at the time.
First I try to separate the theology of the writer from the claims of the early Church. I try to find out (with a lot of study and prayer) what the original writer actually meant and how their stories were seen by the original listeners or readers. This involves being alert to clear contradictions and figuring out why they are there. I try to be as honest as I can so because discrepancies are clearly in the Bible, I have to take them seriously.
About five years ago I had a question: why John's gospel has Jesus dying on the Day of Preparation and why the other three gospels say it was on Passover.
I came to find out that the Day of Preparation was when the Jews slaughter the lambs to be eaten at the Passover meal.
So instead of struggling to fit both views together in a way to skip over the difference, I see them both as valid traditions in the history of Christianity.
That's the only way I can let the Bible make sense to me. If I read all sacred literature literally I would be presented with obvious passages that are incredible to me.
So be that as it may, I use both history and faith to read and study the Bible. So perhaps there is where our differences of opinion become obvious.
Am I making any sense to you? I hope so. Anyway, if you wish you should have back at me. I continually need to be challenged and corrected by others' criticism.
noguru
Well-known member
Your analogy is useless for the logic of my question. But that was a nice attempt at diversion.
Your response assumes that "what is" is exactly as we would expect a universe, with God to be. That means you have definitive knowledge of what a universe, without God would be like.
The rest of your responses in that previous post hinge on that assumption.
I did highlight one part of your response that is accurate, however.
Also, you did not answer the second part of the question. That is expected based on the premise you are trying to establish without sound logical reasoning.
Dialogos
Well-known member
I don't think your question was logical.
Just like most physicists today assume that "what is true of a universe with the law of gravity" is exactly as we would expect a universe with gravity to be.Noguru said:
No, not any more than a physicist has definitive knowledge of what a universe without gravity would be like.Noguru said:
Just because we cannot make any logical, hypothetical guesses about what the universe might have been like were there to be no gravity does not mean we cannot detect the reality of gravity, does it?
:nono:
And, in like fashion, just because we cannot make any logical, hypothetical guesses abut what the universe might have been like were there no God, does not entail we cannot detect the reality of God.
noguru
Well-known member
Again, you are assuming the universe is what it is because of God, and you have no idea what a universe without God would be like. And that includes making theistic statements about the universe as it is based on empiricism. You have no way of knowing, through empiricism, that a universe without God would be any different than our current universe. You are doing the same thing atheists do in regard to gauging "what a universe with God should be like" only you arrive at the opposite deduction. This is faulty logic in atheists, as well as in you.
Physicists can look at situations that are varied in regard to the force/influence of gravity. And there is mathematics that must be satisfied for them in these models. We cannot look at situations that are varied in regard to the influence of God, there is no mathematical model of God. Analysis into effects of gravity is entirely different from proposing an entity that is not within the bounds of the universe (empirical investigation) and cannot be verified with empiricism. Your seemingly empirical verification of God's existence is based upon your expectations, which you still have not established using sound reasoning. In fact you have not even clearly defined your expectations in that regard. To verify that "The exact influence of order/chaos (the universe has both order and chaos) in our universe is the result of God." You would need to establish a prediction. To test that prediction you would need to remove God from the equation and see if your predictions of His influence are falsified in that experiment, and verified in our current universe.
All you have said is "The universe is what it is because of God, and I have no idea what the universe would be like without God." Do you see how illogical/irrational that statement is?
At least be honest about that. If you are not honest about this, I'd say this exchange will only end as just another exercise in futility.
Last edited:
That's perfectly fine and okay with me.
I begin to have a problem when Christians insist the text is inerrant but also assert their own understanding of it is equally inerrant.
But the gospels were written some 40 years to 100 years after the crucifixion. And each writer put down his own inspired agenda, along with a small amount of oral tradition handed down by Jesus' actual followers.
It has been surmised that Mark was written first, because Luke and Matthew had a copy of Mark in front of them as they wrote their gospels. They both follow Mark's order of events but each writer changes his text at times to update it for the specific audience they were writing for--and the unique theology the gospel portraits all show.
I have never been able to make sense of some "voice of God from beyond" that suddenly and somehow poured into these writer's brains free of error and discrepancies.
They were people, not parrots. Thinkers, not memorizers.
But that's just my view.
Dialogos
Well-known member
Of course!
Nope.noguru said:
We have no way, through scientific empiricism, to "test" for God, like we can test for RH factor in blood.noguru said:
We can go only as far as testing, through empirical means, the complexity of creation and infer to the best explanation given the number of explanations that are proposed.
And if I can be so obnoxious as to turn us back to the topic of the OP, why is one very compelling explanation being excluded on the basis of "law" rather than on the basis of science?
You are asking an illogical question.Noguru said:
If you get an illogical answer from the atheists and an illogical answer from the theists, maybe the problem isn't with all the atheists and all the theists, maybe the problem is with your question.
:think:
Sure, would you like to discuss mathematical improbabilities of abiogenesis? How about the mathematical improbabilities of the diversity and complexity of life on earth being caused by random processes? Maybe you would like to discuss the mathematical evidence for design given the fine tuning of the laws of physics and the mathematical evidence that earth was 'designed' to sustain life?noguru said:
Of course, we can't quantifiably test for God, that notion is proposterous, but just like we can understand the force of gravity through the predictability of falling objects we can understand the Intelligence that created through the specified complex information we find at the basic, cellular level, for example.
I have never argued that God can be empirically proven. I have claimed that the evidence points empirically to the fact that life on earth is designed rather than evolved. I would also argue that the laws of physics give evidence of being authored rather than accidental and I would argue that the earth gives evidence of being designed for life.noguru said:
None of these goes as far as being an empirical proof for God and as such empiricism will only take you so far. Not only do I admit as such it is essential to my theology.
No predictions could be taken at all seriously!noguru said:
You are essentially demanding that we ask a question akin to the following:
"What would you hypothesize the Space Needle would look like if there were no architects?"
The question is clearly preposterous, irrational and illogical.
You can't remove the influence of the architects of the Space Needle and verify what it would look like because their influence is essential to the Space Needle being the Space Needle rather than a leanto.
You can, however, ride the elevator and conclude that it was designed rather than coming to the illogical conclusion that while it looks complex enough to be designed, it really evolved, through random processes, over time, from a rope ladder.
What does this have to do with what Jesus has to say?
It tells me his words and deeds were mediated through inspired authors that could only rely on oral tradition. Paul, who has the earliest writings, at least got to meet and talk with the original Peter and John and Jesus' brother James the Just in Jerusalem.
And even that meeting had its conflicts.
That's why it is important to know what Jesus is all about.
I call it contextual reading or reasoning.
Amen, meshak!