The Forum > General Discussion > The Media and opinion pieces.
The Media and opinion pieces.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
-
- All
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 18 February 2011 1:56:31 PM
| |
its sad and funny
i want to help both..walk a middle path christ himself said about believing ..by miracles [it just dosnt bring the required works.. christians need to chose to be doing..to walk the walk of jesus] did he not say let the tares ..grow with the wheat ..till harvest [and by harvest that dont mean some delusional day of judgment..but simply the time we sloth off this suit of skin]..ie die..and our spirit..lives on... for we are of the spirit..not the flersh we make our works spiritual..[eternal not temporal] im sure that you both hold faith but the key is faith in what..the things of this realm or the next? maybe i could reply boazies origonal concepts better i recall he said he needed to rewrite 3 times well lets have a go at what you really meant? ps i havnt read the link i feel i rebutted the miss-conceptions put up in the origonal posted comments/question.. those needing god and jesus to be the same are in for a big dissapointment...[ye shall call HIM emmanuel...has to be a clue] its not jesus that could have a call to be god but this emmaunuel dude..[no not even him] god never was human yet he is all human.. [in that he sustains each of us our lives from within..[god with us] in the end its our works..not our words love god love neighbour..[how hard is that] if boaz can take my sins ..is too stupid for believing yet to believe jesus can ..take our sins ..is equally nutts if its not logical its not of the christ [if its not all good its not of god] he could takeaway our will* ..to sin but then ..we wouldnt be us..[me]...which isnt a real good deal how can forgivness means.. im not me anymore?..[see its nutts] till we CHOSE to reject all sin the sin we bear is our alone.. [no one owns it ..but us] Posted by one under god, Friday, 18 February 2011 5:45:10 PM
| |
I'll give it a go. Yes, the article is poking fun at Christian belief. Those of us who are secure in our belief can smile at it and get on with our lives.
Posted by Otokonoko, Friday, 18 February 2011 7:14:58 PM
| |
Yes Pericles.. I do see why it looks like I changed my position.
1/ Common sense needed. 2/ Divine sense needed. Both are true. I still hold that 'common' (albeit unprejudiced) sense is all that's needed to grasp the Gospels. The scripture about "the god of this world has blinded" is a factor which causes normally common sense to be uncommon. In my case.. to attempt to answer your question, I look at the scriptures as a whole, and look for cross references which all contribute to a stronger sense of credibility for particular bits. The Miracle of the healing of man born blind is a good one. John 9 The incident happened at the Pool of Siloam. Rather than woffle on about 'then' (the denial) and "now" (after Archeological digs) where the trend has only been to confirm rather than weaken the Biblical accounts, I'll let you do some digging on that. But the trend.... is clear.. "confirmation" which lends more credibility to the accuracy of the accounts. It all boils down to the balance of probabilities. The link you gave is a bit dodgy. It mentions "Islam" as a faith where holy men raised the dead. Errr...really? who? when? I know of none. When I google it... I get this :) have a peek http://www.whenistherapture.com/miracles.html Sure..it might have gathered a bit of mythical moss along the way but it does ring true to my own experience with Muslims. The narrative of the man born blind is quite compelling I find. All the reactions.. by the Jews.. his family etc.. all seem most natural. But the primary delineation between 'genuine' and 'fake' seems to be where they morph into 'anamistic/magic' which has the sole purpose of benefitting the recipient rather than proclaiming the Glory of God in Christ. Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Friday, 18 February 2011 7:15:06 PM
| |
It didn't just "look like" you changed your stance, Boaz.
>>Yes Pericles.. I do see why it looks like I changed my position. 1/ Common sense needed. 2/ Divine sense needed. Both are true.<< You contradicted yourself, quite spectacularly. Exhibit A: >>It boils down to a bit of common sense. If you readdd the Gospels...<< 17 February 2011 8:28:41 PM Exhibit B: >>The sense which makes sense of the Gospels.. is not 'common' it is divinely inspired.<< 18 February 2011 10:13:54 AM Your Friday-morning correction is far more credible than your Thursday-evening throw-away line. The problem with it, as I pointed out, is that it is circular: only if you are "divinely-inspired" can you possibly believe the miracles described, and - presumably - only if you believe the miracles can you become "divinely-inspired". Your reference to the Pool of Siloam has a similar structure to it. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the re-discovery of the pool that indicates that it healed a blind person. Nor is there even definitive evidence that it is, in fact, the Pool of Siloam. To believe that it is, and that it witnessed a miracle, you have to first of all... believe. Another circle. http://www.bibleplaces.com/poolofsiloam.htm There is nothing specific. Just speculation. As usual. And some doubt. "I'm struck by Charlesworth's statement that the pool was found 'exactly where John said it was.' I don't see anything in the Gospel of John that indicates a location. Look for yourself: chapter 9. So is this a misquote or a 'caught up in the heat of the moment' misstatement? Or maybe he simply means that it was found in Jerusalem." http://www.bibleplaces.com/poolofsiloamanalysis.htm As you say... >>It all boils down to the balance of probabilities<< Unsurprisingly, your idea of balance and mine, clearly differ. >>But the primary delineation between 'genuine' and 'fake' seems to be where... the sole purpose [is] benefitting the recipient rather than proclaiming the Glory of God in Christ<< Not really. The whole idea is build a substantial legend. Which also explains miracles reported prior to, and subsequent to, the Jesus period. Posted by Pericles, Monday, 21 February 2011 9:59:45 AM
|
>>The sense which makes sense of the Gospels.. is not 'common' it is divinely inspired.<<
But did you not, in your immediately prior post, state that it only requires common sense?
You did, you know...
>>It boils down to a bit of common sense. If you readdd the Gospels.. and note the various details about each incident..they are suggestive of eye witness accounts and reliable descriptions.<<
As I suspected - and as you now freely confess - it has absolutely nothing to do with common sense. At all.
You should have written instead, that "it boils down to a bit of divinely inspired sense."
Which is precisely my position on the "miracles". Only those who have previously decided that they will believe in them, could possibly believe in them.
My original question remains unanswered, I notice.
What is it about the miracles that you selected, that convinces you that they might actually have occurred as described?
And are they different in some way from the others, e.g miracles performed directly by God, miracles performed by the prophets with God's power, miracles by apostles and saints, miracles by dead saints, and miracles in conjunction with the relics of saints?
If there are some that you reject, on what basis do you reject them?
Please don't tell me that your selection process is "divinely inspired"...?
And would it be possible cut a deal on the scriptures?
>>... dear Pericles... your last post is why I ended my previous one with: II Cor 4:3ff<<
Let me repeat that to me, the use of your chosen "gospels" is evidence of nothing, except your belief in them.
Which I do not share.
Quoting your Bible at me is exactly as meaningful as quoting from the Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon, or the Rig Veda.
In Sanskrit.
As a means to "convert" me, it is guaranteed to fail. As a source of "evidence", it is meaningless.