God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 1 of 5 | True Freethinker
Thursday, November 25, 2010
God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 1 of 5 | True Freethinker
God Took Human Form (Before the Time of Jesus), part 1 of 5 | True Freethinker
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd previously mused to myself that you're just a hairsbreadth from becoming a Muslim. I'd forgotten about that until just now when you mentioned you liked Marino's writing style. Stylistically, he reminds me a lot of some of the Muslim scholars I've read.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it'll be interesting to see where he goes with this. If you presuppose that the bible is one unified, coherent and divinely inspired piece of literature, then you've got some tough theological questions that will come from this.
But more likely, it just shows that the bible is not unified, coherent and divinely inspired piece of literature and gives us a glimpse of how the Hebrew concept of god has evolved over time.
Ryan, that's exactly where you show just how much you don't understand. Islam denies the trinity and the incarnation - by definition. And I sure would like to know which "tough" theological questions that come with the view of Scripture I have? You can't show that that the Bible is not a unified, coherent, and divinely inspired piece of literature. Where is your proof? That doesn't mean that people's understanding of God has not changed. There is such thing as "progressive revelation". You are proof positive that scripture can be veiled to certain people at times in their lives. Just like Moses had a better (more fuller) understanding of God than Noah. And Isaiah had a better understanding of God than Moses. This also does not mean the concept of God has evolved. Hebrew understanding of God does. Just as our understanding of God changes - grows over time. It's called "relationship".
ReplyDeleteIslam denies the trinity and the incarnation - by definition.
ReplyDeleteReally, you don't say...
You didn't have a relationship with God...that's why you are an apostate.
ReplyDeleteAnd neither do you.
ReplyDelete2 degrees in Physics and Engineering from UC Berkeley says different about my ability and interpret scientific data versus your ability.
ReplyDeleteFinance...lol
And on top of that my relationship with God is one of the evidences that there is a God. You should try it.
ReplyDeleteI've tried it Marcus, it's a charade, the sooner you realize it the better. I suspect you've got too much invested though, so even if you wanted to not believe, you couldn't allow your self to. That's got to be awkward.
ReplyDeleteAs to your degrees, good for you, but honestly, at face value, they don't say anything about your ability to interpret scientific data versus mine. And since you are being a jerk about an entire field of study (lol!!!) let me just say the quality of your writing and evident analytic skills does speak against your ability to interpret scientific data. As does your obsession with religion and the fact that you hold one of the most confused views of evolution I've encountered.
What field of science do you work in and what are some of your papers? Is there another site where you post in your field?
Let's define "jerk". You are the one who brought up ability and fitness to discuss science and theology with nothing to back up any reason or credentials to think you are better at it than me or William Lane Craig. Also the attempt to cast dispersion on my scientific credentials with none of your own is really shallow. I also don't see how you not being able to find God means no one else has or does. Smacks of arrogance. Actually degrees do say something about ability to interpret and analyze scientific data. Here's a hint: you don't pass your classes and earn your degrees if you can't. Well, at least at Berkeley you can't earn degrees that way. You are the one who suggested that anyone should be ignored who speaks outside their expertise and here you are doing just that. Physics and computer science are my fields. Yours is finance. I admit that I was hasty in saying that your abilities are inferior but that is applying your own values that you suggested. Also if you think my views on evolution are strange and outlandish you really should read more because I'm not the only one. Many scientists hold it as well. I don't think I'm obsessed with religion. I'm obsessed with Jesus and I want everyone who has not met him, and you surely haven't, to meet him. God is real and I'll be praying that he makes that clear to you as He has made it clear to me and many others. It's not because you are dumb or stupid. But you do have a stubborn pride that has blinded you to God. I think Finance is a great field and important field, but does not qualify you to tell me I know nothing about math and physics which I have spent a lot of time studying. I currently work in computer science and modeling of vegetation systems that analyze and report on National Forests. Back in 1996 I had a paper I wrote on mathematically modeling a one-legged hopping robot when I was an undergraduate researcher at Berkeley's mechatronics lab.
ReplyDeleteYou are the one who suggested that anyone should be ignored who speaks outside their expertise and here you are doing just that.
ReplyDeletePeople should not be considered an authority outside their field of expertise. I can speak about whatever I damned well please, and if I make a good point, fine, take it for what it's worth, but only when I'm talking about corporate finance and banking do I expect people to treat me as an authority. You're not an authority in math or physics. The categories are too broad, but I will defer to you if the topic of building a computer model to analyze forests comes up.
Back in 1996 I had a paper I wrote on mathematically modeling a one-legged hopping robot when I was an undergraduate researcher at Berkeley's mechatronics lab.
Can we agree you shouldn't call yourself a scientist?
Can agree that you can't call yourself a financial analysis or that you never where a Christian as the Bible defines a "Believer" and a follower of Christ? If so, then yes. I prefer "engineer" anyway.
ReplyDeleteTyped too fast...meant "financial analyst".
ReplyDeleteAlso just because William Lane Craig is not a physicist does not mean he can't make valid points about physics or cosmology. I agree. Same things goes for you. Again, you are the one who argued that the standard should be not to accepts someone who is speaking outside their field should not be considered authority. I was just applying your standard to you.
ReplyDeleteYou don't understand what my field is. MY skills can be and have been applied to several different kinds of data. Physics and Chemistry are just the tip of the iceberg. I don't know much about finance outside the math, but no one can know everything.
Well, I'm not a financial analyst, but I was a christian. I also have an MS and build computer models so can I call myself a scientist and pretend to debunk christianity from a position of authority? No. But that's what you do with evolution. I've seen no argumentation from you, just "Evolution is wrong, I'm a "scientist", you wouldn't understand".
ReplyDeleteI'll defer to 95% of accredited scientist (gallup).
I've said a lot more than just evolution is wrong. You obviously didn't understand that. I can talk about theology from an informed position because I am also a licensed minister. I'm a scientist because I am trained in science in general and physics in particular. I've studied a lot of mathematics.
ReplyDeleteBeing a christian is more than just being a christian culturally or having been raised in a Christian household. You said that there was no change in you. God did not reach into you and change your attitudes and the way you think. You said that. I didn't. That means you were never born again. That means there is no evidence you were ever a Christian. End of story. I can honestly say that every single christian I know can testify to what God did for them and through them. And I know people like you too. And I know what their lives are like and it's obvious they were never born again. I don't know your life. If you were ever really born again, you'll be back to God. And I hope either that is the case or you will be born again for real.
I can talk about theology from an informed position because I am also a licensed minister.
ReplyDeleteWell, apparently I can too... Hahahaha...
Marcus; to be clear what we’re talking about, is the issue of authority. You (or William Craig) can say “I think the big bang is X because the work of Dr.’s Y and Z shows that it does” and you can be right, but you can’t say “The big bang shows X”. From what I’ve seen, William Craig oversteps his authority on matter of Cosmology and Physics. And although he’s an authority in the philosophical aspects of time, he appears to have not kept up with the actual physics of time, which is telling.
ReplyDeleteAnd you’d need at least a Masters in Divinity to consider yourself an authority on Theology. I got my minister’s license on line, for free, and you get what you pay for, but it let's me perform marriages, so hey... They don’t mean anything else.
Your exegetical skills are horrible. I didn't get my license on line. I'm actually in the pulpit at my local congregation and preach regularly. Your license may not mean much but mine requires me to rightly handle and teach scripture - and much accountability.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a problem with me making a statement without appealing to what you accept as a higher authority that is your problem. You are more than welcomed to appeal to n authority and show it wrong. As for Dr. Craig, I sure would like to see what evidence you have that he hasn't kept up with current physics.
Your exegetical skills are horrible. I didn't get my license on line. I'm actually in the pulpit at my local congregation and preach regularly.
ReplyDeleteYour use of the word "exegetical" is horrible. I think you used it simply because you don't like having your self-preceived theological authority mocked. My point is you could have gotten it online for all I know, and preaching doesn't mean you know theology, just that you know your congregation. How's your Hebrew, Greek and Latin? At least I can read Latin. You?
I officially declare an end to this pissing match. You are an authority on all matters and I expect to be invited to the Nobel Prize in Biology or Physics Ceremony since clearly you'll be winning it any day now, just let me know when!
As for William Craig, his ontological argument requires the A theory of time to be true which most practicing physicist don't agree with.
I never claimed to be an authority. Just better than you. You have shown no ability to explain any scripture or show how I explained anything wrongly. I obviously know more about Greek and Hebrew than you do and learning more. As for Latin, it hasn't helped you understand 1st John chapter 2. If it did than you would know that you have been a Christian and now apostate.
ReplyDeleteMeant that you could not have been a Christian and now an apostate.
ReplyDeleteObviously Marcus? It's actually not obvious at all.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize there's a difference between understanding what an author is saying and believing that those words are the absolute truth, right?
ReplyDeleteYes, of course there is a difference between believing and understanding. You don't understand.
ReplyDelete1. The Bible defines what Christianity is.
2. The Bible claim that it's its true and Christians believe it.
3. The Bible says that a believer who stops believer was never a Christina in the first place.
Therefore an apostate cannot have been Christian.
If you argue that the Bible is not true. Then that means you were never a Christian and proves that the Bible is true at least at that one point.
You are perfectly in your right to reject it. It just proves that Bible is right about apostasy.
You do realize what ἀποστασία means, right? One is x and when one leaves x they become an apostate from x. In fact, one has to be part of x to be an apostate from x. You can't be an apostate if you weren't part of x.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, I was a christian, and now I'm an apostate. All christians are apostates waiting to happen.
Richard Muller in his Dictionary of Greek and Latin Theological Terms says “[apostasy is] a willful falling away from, or rebellion against, Christian truth. Apostasy is the rejection of Christ by one who has been a Christian....”
Although I disagree with the term “Christian Truth”, his definition is not yours, and no offense, but I’ll trust him over you as to what ἀποστασία actually means, being that he's an authority on the subject and you are not.
See how that is supposed to work?
I didn't dispute that. I disputed that you can claim to have been a believer. Not all cultural Christians, as you were, are believers. From the start I have been talking about true Christian faith. From the start, I've been arguing that you never had "true Christian faith? I would say that John is a higher authority than Richard Muller.
ReplyDeleteThey went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
1 John 2:19
See how it is supposed to work? Probably not.
Marcus said "Therefore an apostate cannot have been Christian."
ReplyDeleteThen Ryan said Richard said "Apostasy is the rejection of Christ by one who has been a Christian"
Then Marcus said "I didn't dispute that."
Um...?
And "John's" not actually an authority since that work was probably written around 90 CE and since we don't really know who he was or if "he" actually wrote the Gosple of John.
Also, the one thing you cannot make any assertions about is what someone believed. I did believe. Sorry that does fit with your theology.
False convert theology is not mainstream. Doesn't mean it's "wrong", but since theology basically reduces to nerds arguing over the chemistry of dilithium crystals relative to their efficency as warp drive fuel, it's a moot point.
ReplyDeleteDepends on your definition of "Christian" does it? We don't have the same definition. Also notice you didn't deny what 1 John 2:19 says. No, instead you denied his authority to write it and to be believed. Sad. I'm not making the assertion about what you believed. God did. Your argument is inconsistent.
ReplyDeleteI deny that "John" had any special insight beyond anyone else living at the time and specifically I assert that 1st John 2:19 is simply a device to explain away people who come to their senses.
ReplyDeleteI assert that 1 John 2:19 is about people who lost their senses after they thought they had them, but the cares of this world choked it out. Fits with the parable of the sower Jesus told.
ReplyDeleteOf course you deny that John was right, you are an unregenerate sinner and an apostate. What else can you think?
ReplyDeleteIf I'm an apostate, it means I was a christian. So we agree?
ReplyDeleteStupid equivocation. I already explained my position. You were a Christian in name only or you will be back eventually.
ReplyDeleteYou do realize what ἀποστασία means, right? One is x and when one leaves x they become an apostate from x. In fact, one has to be part of x to be an apostate from x. You can't be an apostate if you weren't part of x.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, I was a christian, and now I'm an apostate. All christians are apostates waiting to happen.
Richard Muller in his Dictionary of Greek and Latin Theological Terms says “[apostasy is] a willful falling away from, or rebellion against, Christian truth. Apostasy is the rejection of Christ by one who has been a Christian....”