WHO is Jesus?

[Hawkeye]

Exactly Indigo.

Eora-I do have to tend to agree that even though I know you like philosophy and none of this makes sense to you I have to agree with Shimmer that it does sound a bit (ex: Nonsensical etc) condecending. Also-this science stuff- I understand you come from a very scientific background-I do to, I'm in school to be a Doctor. But you have to realize that not everyone loves Science and that most people are bored as hell with it. So when you bring up science-it's not going to mean anything to anybody unless they share the love of science.

I'll be perfectly blunt-even more so than I am-but if someone doesn't actively go out and read scientific magazines etc then they sure as hell are not going to give a rip about molecules, atoms etc. They just won't. So basically when you start going to that manner it does seem very condescending that when you start breaking it down you say-well I explained this logically. Someone else will say-No you didn't you just used a bunch of scientific words that mean nothing.

I love science-but at the same time I can see this because I have had to force myself many times to stop and to step back and evaluate how the person thinks in order to get my questioning across without making it appear that I thought I was better than that person.

I can't speak for indigo but I can say that just reading some of her posts I get the feeling that she is thinking-" what the crap? He's just using a bunch of scientific words-why can't he discuss the issue? Why doesn't he understand he could've just said-I don't like the analogy of water because it makes no sense to me-can you give me another one?" I'm really getting that sense reading through her posts.

I don't think she want's to discuss Science. I think she wants to discuss Jesus Christ and who he is as a man. Not as a bunch of molecules and atoms etc. And in order for you to be able to understand what she is saying and what other people say in future posts (and keep in mind this thread is an old thread)-you must treat this as if he were a real man-whether you believe in it or not.

(Ex: I've never met John Lennon. He died before I was born. I see documents on him, met people who have seen him etc-but I personally have never met the man or been to his grave. Does that mean he never existed? Or I have never met the guy who works down at some gas station in Oklahoma. Never met him. Don't even know his name. Never even seen him. Does that mean he never existed?)

This is the philosophy I'm trying to get you to see. I know you like science but not everyone does-you MUST start thinking in the realm of a person and of people.

And until both you and Indigo find some sort of common ground neither of you will be able to gain understanding into the other.

Now-Eora-after that-just remember I still love ya and I wouldn't tell you anything I would not tell my own brother or best friend or husband.

To everyone-
You can't argue against something you've never read as Indigo correctly pointed out. You don't know the ins and outs of things you don't know what what happened and you can quote all you want but unless you actually read it you have no context or no knowledge of what it is even referring to.

Many Christians haven't read the Bible and have absolutely no knowledge of what is going on there. They take a verse and it says this-but they dont take the time to read whats behind it or in front of it.

For example-in the book of Matthew it states " Do not call someone a fool least you be in danger of the fires of hell". I had a friend who would NEVER EVER call someone a fool because she was convinced she would go to hell. But I read the actual book of Matthew and knew that Jesus wasn't telling anyone if you say the word fool you'll go straight to hell-Jesus was saying-If you call someone a fool for doing something, and you are doing the exact same thing, you are being hypocritical and then you are in danger of the fires of hell.

That is what he was telling us.

So it is foolish for anyone to not read what they are arguing about.

 

[MarniMac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Do you not understand that by calling them "nonsensical" you're being patently offensive as well as immediately offputting in regard to any further discussion on the matter? If, when you posted your FOTDs in the forum, someone said "Well, the makeup looks okay, but you're a guy, so you look like an overpainted clown in sequins" would you really bother to pay any further attention to what that individual had to say, regardless of whether s/he had tips to offer regarding blending a harsh line or fixing eyeliner?

Just a thought...I'm not trying to make excuses for Eoraptor being condecending...but he is a guy (no offense Eor)...and sometimes they just speak their minds and aren't as sensitive as us ladies...plus he seems pretty cerebral which, male or female no matter, isn't always condusive to tip toeing around saying what they think.
I'm not trying to stereotype here...just a thought.

 

[Shimmer]

True.

But I think it's a fair statement to say that most of the members of this board don't really tippy toe around what they have to say. I don't think it's necessary to sugar coat anything in order to make a point, but I also don't think it's necessary to refer to someone's statement of beliefs as believing in "nonsense" or "illogical processes" or any of the other multitude of statements that are similar.

Expecting a civil and non accusatory discussion while disregarding the other party's opinions, statements, research, experiences, and feelings on the subject or dismissing them as "nonsense" is unrealistic as best.

 

[Indigowaters]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarniMac Just a thought...I'm not trying to make excuses for Eoraptor being condecending...but he is a guy (no offense Eor)...and sometimes they just speak their minds and aren't as sensitive as us ladies...plus he seems pretty cerebral which, male or female no matter, isn't always condusive to tip toeing around saying what they think. I'm not trying to stereotype here...just a thought.

Neither am I one to tiptoe around anything, but I seem to be getting called out for speaking my beliefs also. I do think excuses are being made for someone who is basically telling people they have no common sense to believe what they do. Yet, I haven't called anyone out of their name or told them what to believe, just what I believe. Just a thought.

 

[MarniMac]

Oh Gah. Nobody is "calling you out on your beliefs." You are getting butthurt because somebody said something that made you feel nonsensical...if your faith was so strong, nothing anyone said could make you feel that way.
*No tiptoeing there* Feel free to edit me Shimmer if that is too harsh.

 

[Eoraptor]

Well I don't think we'll get anywhere in the "understanding the Trinity" topic, so let's tackle the larger one of perceived offense.

Quote:

Do you not understand that by calling them "nonsensical" you're being patently offensive as well as immediately offputting in regard to any further discussion on the matter? If, when you posted your FOTDs in the forum, someone said "Well, the makeup looks okay, but you're a guy, so you look like an overpainted clown in sequins" would you really bother to pay any further attention to what that individual had to say, regardless of whether s/he had tips to offer regarding blending a harsh line or fixing eyeliner?

No, quite honestly I didn't understand that calling an argument (NOT a person) nonsensical is offensive to the person who brought it up. Perhaps I'm too used to discussing things scientifically, where criticizing arguments is not only expected, but encouraged. But most of us aren't scientists, and I apologize for assuming Indigowaters and others understood my intent. You see, to most scientists, criticizing ideas isn't considered offensive. Even the most brilliant people can have idiotic ideas, and scientists generally like to have their ideas picked apart. This lets them either strengthen their idea by countering new arguments, or revise their idea if the flaws are valid. Criticizing people is different, and is largely discouraged. I never criticized Indigowaters, which I tried to explain in the post she didn't read.

For an FOTD example, imagine I posted an FOTD where I said "My eyes are too far apart, so I applied dark shadow to the outer V and extended the liner out as a cat eye, because applying makeup to the far corners should solve a problem involving far-ness." I would not be offended if someone replied "That doesn't make sense. Humans judge the distance between eyes based on the distance between their inner corners or centers, so making the inner corners darker will make the eyes appear closer together." Would anyone be offended? Note I was never insulted in this example (unlike yours), only my idea was insulted (and rightly so). Are people far more sensitive than I'm giving them credit for?

Quote:

Ok, I didn't read that last (not the last two but above that) post because I'm not here to talk about science and elements. The only reason I gave that example was because we all can understand the element of H20. It seemed to have opened the minds of people as a way to explain the Trinity and of course you, Eoraptor, came along talking more about science than Jesus Himself. I could care less at this point about molecules and ions and the speed of light.

youbeabitch also said a lot about discussing science vs. discussing Jesus.

And yet the structure of the Trinity is a theological topic. Theology aspires to be a science, so it's not uncalled for to treat it scientifically. Jesus himself, if He existed, had properties which can be examined scientifically. If He was just a man, His properties wouldn't be anymore interesting than yours or mine (we all know human properties well enough), but if He was God, I find His properties extremely interesting. Was he made of the same composition as Yahweh? Did he share a mind with Yahweh? Does He exist for the purpose of salvation, or was it merely convenient to use Him for salvation? These are just as much about Jesus as questions about His morals or actions are. Apparently you aren't interested in that aspect of Jesus, but perhaps other people are, such as those wondering how to think of the Trinity.

I really thought the confusion of the Trinity lies with the concept of three people being one person, which is a structural issue. So I don't see how you can approach it without the use of scientific concepts. If someone is too bored or apathetic to discuss the topic, that's their choice. But interest is a key part of learning.

I'm confused by the accusation that I "just used a bunch of scientific words," as if using accurate terminology was a bad thing? Indigowaters is older than me and insists she's educated. What would be condescending (in my view) is if I dumbed-down what I said - "stuff they are made of" instead of "composition"; "tiny pieces" instead of "molecules"; etc.. The only term I thought might be too technical for the adult public was "teleology", which I defined for that very reason.

And now we return to our program "Who is Jesus?", already in progress...

Quote:

(Ex: I've never met John Lennon. He died before I was born. I see documents on him, met people who have seen him etc-but I personally have never met the man or been to his grave. Does that mean he never existed?

Ah, but there are people who knew him who are alive now and can be questioned. There are many societal records (birth certificates, IDs, licenses, probably legal records, etc.). There are photographic, audio and video recordings of him.

Imagine it's the year 4000, and there are a ton of Beatles fans. Yet the earliest record we have of John Lennon is from 2020 or later, at least 40 years after he was supposed to have died. We know because it's a DVD, and those didn't exist before 1980. It says he was a great musician who traveled the globe and had a large following. But no one in the sixties wrote anything about him or his band. There are no concert schedules, no newspaper articles about their actions. Oh, there are plenty of writings about The Rolling Stones, The Who, The Doors, so people were certainly keeping track of things. But no Beatles. The Americans kept good track of trials, yet Lennon's supposed death at the hands of Mark David Chapman isn't among them. That's the situation with Jesus Christ. And Jesus, like the Beatles, was supposed to be one of the most well known people at the time He lived. So the lack of records is particularily disturbing.

Quote:

Or I have never met the guy who works down at some gas station in Oklahoma. Never met him. Don't even know his name. Never even seen him. Does that mean he never existed?)

Obviously, we can't prove anyone didn't exist. You can't prove a negative. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to believe anyone did exist. For a twist on Bertrand Russell's classic analogy (it's Analogy Day!

), no one can prove there isn't a teacup on Pluto. Our telescopes aren't powerful enough to tell. We have no one who's been to Pluto, and have sent no spacecraft there. But does that mean the devout Teacupist who firmly believes in the Plutonian teacup gets the benefit of the doubt, and that it's the secular Ateacupists who bear the task of disproving the teacup's existance? That when the Ateacupists point out the reasons for doubting a teacup exist on Pluto, the believers can just say "well, you don't know there's no teacup, my belief is as rational as yours."? I think you'd agree the Teacupists reasoning is faulty. Your reasoning is the same. Since there's a lack of evidence, it's your job to provide some about your Oklahoman gas station worker before anyone should believe in him. Especially if he has unheard of characteristrics such as walking on water, turning water to wine, or rising from the dead. That makes him as unlikely as the Plutonian teacup, placing doubt firmly as the default position.

Edit: I know you still love me, youbeabitch, and hope you understand I feel the same way and wouldn't tell you anything I wouldn't tell my mother (indeed, I HAVE told my mom the teacup analogy- haha).

 

[Shimmer]

What you're failing to grasp is that by saying someone believes "nonsense" you're insulting them.
And, scientifically speaking while there are subjects I'm sure many are passionate about, there aren't many subjects that are as much a core of someone's being as religion is, so yes, you're insulting someone by stating they believe nonsense.

Honestly, if the thread can't become productive, I'm going to lock it.

The Trinity Shield, for those interested.

 

[Hawkeye]

Eora-

*HUGS*

ANd that's a good theory. It's one of my favorites actually

A lot of doctors use something similar.

Back to the science thing-Indigo is a very educated woman. But I don't think science is her passion. You always must tap into someones passions to communicate efficiently. For example- Both of our passions are science and philosophy etc. We communicate well yet we both have our disagreements-but we acknowledge and respect them. However-If I started trying to convince you that Captain Kirk was by far a better Captain than Captain Picard and say you weren't a Trekkie (I AM! LOL) and you liked American Idol (Sorry it's the only tv show I can think of right now) but I hated american idol- since Star Trek isn't your passion (supposidly) you would be like OK whatever and dismiss it because 1) You've heard of these guys but you maybe watched 30 minutes of Star Trek. 2) You don't really know a lot about it and sometimes get start Trek and star wars confused 3) and you honestly don't care to know. It's just one of those things. So I'm doing all the arguing and you're just like-" Look, Their stupid Captains-what don't you get that I don't give a rip about the Enterprise?" And the same would be if you tried to convince me about Simon from American Idol. I don't watch that show, I know he's a jerk but that's as far as I know. You could try to convince me that he is really a great guy for putting people out of their misery. I'd get a glazed look over my eyes and drool will start coming down my chin LOL

You gotta find what is important to a person and find some common ground.

Now say as our anology above-you also happen to love astronomy. And I say-Hey-I watch Star Trek, I don't know much but I know a little about it. So we start talking about Astronomy and then I can convey to you about Captain Kirk and you can convey to me about Simon through the common language.

But- as an example of you and I-Our philosophies, political thought processes etc differ greatly-yet we have a common language of not only science, but our love of philosophy, and our love of makeup. So even though we are rapidly different-we have a lot of common ground.

That's what I'm trying to get at. It's not really an accusation it's more of a "gentle prodding" to get a better perspective on other people

Now, I like it when people try to disprove Jesus-if for no other reason it shows that they are trying to look for themselves whether or not this man really existed and if he did who the hell was he?

It's not just the situation with Jesus Christ either, it's a lot of people. Like Mohammad. Confuscious. I'll even venture to go so far as Alexander, Plato, Sun Tzu, Socrates etc.

We have a bunch of documents many can be myths but we dont know the actual truth of history. For all we know the guy we know as plato never did actually write any philosophies or even come up with them. He probably heard some guy ranting on the side of the road and took it down and voila he became famous.

It is our job as scientists to understand what we do not. But in order to understand we must be able to say-I don't know about this-it makes no since-it's purely illogical but what the hell lets explore it anyway.

That's what a scientist does-they take two things that do not seem to go together, they connect it and then they see how they can better philosophies, ideas, thought processes. I mean look at the law of gravity. Assuming Newton used an Apple (he probably didn't)- He probably couldn't figure out why Apples fall to the earth. Why didn't float? To us it's so simple but because he took 2 very unseemingly close objects- a stupid apple and a rock no correlation yet he came up with the law of gravity.

So we must look at the two thought processes:
Jesus Did not Exist & Jesus Did Exist

and find some correlation to see what we can come up with to find some correlation in such definate statements ...

As for the Trinity-I have never been able to understand it. I've always come from the idea that you have lets use Shimmer since I know her background a bit- You have Shimmer. She is not only a wife, but she is also a mother and she is somebodies daughter. 3 in 1. That's how I've always heard it.

I personally think the concept of the trinity is nothing more than another way for man to complicate faith.

 

[Indigowaters]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarniMac Oh Gah. Nobody is "calling you out on your beliefs." You are getting butthurt because somebody said something that made you feel nonsensical...if your faith was so strong, nothing anyone said could make you feel that way. *No tiptoeing there* Feel free to edit me Shimmer if that is too harsh.

Shimmer doesn't have to edit anything sweetheart. I'm a big girl and can stand up for myself. My thing is, if we want to do the name calling, let's go ahead. But I think we need to keep this discussion on topic. And it's not if my faith is so strong, it is that strong. No words you or someone else on this board say is going to change that.

 

[M]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarniMac Oh Gah. Nobody is "calling you out on your beliefs." You are getting butthurt because somebody said something that made you feel nonsensical...if your faith was so strong, nothing anyone said could make you feel that way. *No tiptoeing there* Feel free to edit me Shimmer if that is too harsh.

I have to disagree with "if your faith was so strong, nothing anyone could say would make you feel that way". I'm not sure if you have children-so this analogy may not fit for you. But the love you have for you children is different than any love you will ever experience. And so is the love you have for Christ if you are a Christian. It's not like the love you have for your spouse/SO, parents, friends or relatives. I believe strongly in my children. I love them so much that when someone "attacks" them I don't initially realize I feel pain because I get offended/angry. Sometimes I want to give that person thier "just desserts" -even if they are only 5 years old-LOL! Sometimes I have the same reaction when people disrespect my Savior. I get offended and my blood pressure rises. I am human-NOT perfect. Just because Indigowaters doesn't agree or like what Eroraptor is saying doesn't mean her faith is weak at all. It actually means that it's strong. Why would his statements bother her at all if her faith was weak-then she would be questioning herself-not standing up for what she believes in. Of course she is Butthurt (as you put it)-because she feels someone she loves is being disrespected/minimized in a condescending way. It doesn't matter HOW she feels-the truth is she does and that is ok.

 

[Indigowaters]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eoraptor I'm confused by the accusation that I "just used a bunch of scientific words," as if using accurate terminology was a bad thing? Indigowaters is older than me and insists she's educated. What would be condescending (in my view) is if I dumbed-down what I said - "stuff they are made of" instead of "composition"; "tiny pieces" instead of "molecules"; etc.. The only term I thought might be too technical for the adult public was "teleology", which I defined for that very reason.

I don't believe I was the one who said "just used a bunch of scientific words", so please don't quote me on that. I don't need anything dumbed-down for me, it's just that I don't want to talk about science. That's getting way off subject. Oh, and though I am, I never insisted that I was educated. Or maybe that was just a little quip at me, no?