TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- God
Pages (25): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 25 »

DJ Pierre believes in the Father, Son, and Spirit - one of the greatest house producers ever



hallelujah. a legend with an ill catalogue is a devout christian.

"We make our way through Everything like thread passing through fabric- giving shape to images that we ourselves do not know"

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Hard to say exactly when he became believed to be divine.

I believe it was decided upon at the First Council of Nicea in 325AD, but I could be mistaken. That's where the Roman Catholic Nicene Creed comes from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard It stands to reason that there would be nothing written about him in his life time, as during his lifetime he would have been a largely insigificant person...

Not according to the Bible. I like to quote:

"Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis,[a] Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him. Matthew" 4:25

"Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak Luke" 12:1

"The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting,
"Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the King of Israel!" John 12:11

- And much more. Should You Believe the Bible then Jesus was a very famous person in the entire Middle East, and it is downright absurd that no historian should have taken notice of it during his lifetime.
Should we not believe the Bible, and assume that he was unknown, then it's no longer the same Jesus we're talking about - it's just a guy named Yeshu who babbled around at the time, and it is likely there was a Yeshu.

So sorry, but it is simply wrong.

quote:

If nothing else the Jesus of the bible is a character of legend, legends are often based on some truth...

And why is it a legend? Because people perceive it as being based on reality. That is what "legend" means. Maybe he was not a legend, but just a story.
- You can use that we call him a legend, as proof that he is a legend. It is circular logic.

quote:

in this case I would suggest that it's reasonable to assume there was a wondering teacher in Galalie and Judea by the name Yeshua in the first half of the first century CE.

Exactly as I said: it is quite likely. Just like it is quite likely that in Wellton Town lives a family with two children named Johnson.
The likelihood alone is not a reason to believe it.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 I believe it was decided upon at the First Council of Nicea in 325AD, but I could be mistaken. That's where the Roman Catholic Nicene Creed comes from. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

The council of Nicaea only standardized/codified believe amongst a number of "churches." The majority of Christian communities had already come to the belief that Jesus was divine prior to the council. So while it's right to say the council concluded that Jesus was divine the majority of Christian leaders would have held that position before this time.

But you're not allowed to have your own beliefs before the church makes them official

quote:

Originally posted by Znack Not according to the Bible. I like to quote: "Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis,[a] Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him. Matthew" 4:25 "Meanwhile, when a crowd of many thousands had gathered, so that they were trampling on one another, Jesus began to speak Luke" 12:1 "The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the King of Israel!" John 12:11 - And much more. Should You Believe the Bible then Jesus was a very famous person in the entire Middle East, and it is downright absurd that no historian should have taken notice of it during his lifetime. Should we not believe the Bible, and assume that he was unknown, then it's no longer the same Jesus we're talking about - it's just a guy named Yeshu who babbled around at the time, and it is likely there was a Yeshu. So sorry, but it is simply wrong.

Indeed, the gospels do speak of great crowds; however, crowd is a relative term and like I said the Jesus movement was a working class and outsider movement. During his life time he would have been regarded in much the same way as the other wondering prophets and teachers, which if you wish to rely on scripture are also referenced in the bible.

quote:

And why is it a legend? Because people perceive it as being based on reality. That is what "legend" means. Maybe he was not a legend, but just a story. - You can use that we call him a legend, as proof that he is a legend. It is circular logic.

What? It's not circular logic. Real events give rise to oral tradition, oral tradition becomes expanded/embellished, becomes legend. Because the legend exists it is reasonable to conclude that it was inspired at least in part by real events.

quote:

Exactly as I said: it is quite likely. Just like it is quite likely that in Wellton Town lives a family with two children named Johnson. The likelihood alone is not a reason to believe it.

Of course it is... if something is probable then it is reasonable to believe it. I'm not making the jump that one should believe that all the events of the gospel are true; just that there probably was a historical Jesus upon which the Christian traditions are based. Very few reasonable people would dispute this position because it is probable.

There's so much hate in this thread.

God is such a hate monger. What a dick.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack And why is it a legend? Because people perceive it as being based on reality. That is what "legend" means. Maybe he was not a legend, but just a story. - You can use that we call him a legend, as proof that he is a legend. It is circular logic.

Actually, that's not what legend means. Honestly, I don't know why people here continue to argue with someone more concerned with the prevalence of his own tactical conversational style than the substance of his arguments. When you engage in semantic hair-splitting to arrive at a conclusion which no other evidence is provided - THAT is what circular logic means.

The first thing you write, i dont understand. Yes, people who believe in supernatural things, believe things without evidence. It goes without saying. Do you think this is a good thing? I do not understand.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On In what you suppose I am trying to do, you are in some way acknowledging yourself that theoretical physicists are an authority.

Not really. Appeal to authority is simply the name of a false argument-form in which one attemts to portray a person or work as authoritarian, and therefore as an argument in itself.

quote:

But then you turned around and appealed your argument to what you believe to be the greatest minds in recent times - obviously irrefutable authorities in the matter. Nice.

No, I did not. I have never claimed that simply the fact that intelligent people believe (or dont believe) something, is an argument for its state. I mentioned Einstein and Hawking because they clearly show that intelligent people or physicists not necessarily have to be right, because it is impossible that both believers and nonbelievers of them are right.

- I thought frankly that was pretty obvious. How can you get the absurd idea that I presented ​​them as arguments?

quote:

Anyway, it is my understanding that Einstein did indeed believe it was possible there was a God - albeit not the "Christian" god of authority or punishment,

Einstein was probably a pantheist - that is. He called nature God. That is exactly the same as being an atheist, because nature is not a god in any meaningful sense. It is fully certain that he did not believe in personal gods.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack Einstein was probably a pantheist - that is. He called nature God. That is exactly the same as being an atheist, because nature is not a god in any meaningful sense. It is fully certain that he did not believe in personal gods.

That's some fine mental gymnastics for you, sparky.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack The first thing you write, i dont understand. Yes, people who believe in supernatural things, believe things without evidence. It goes without saying. Do you think this is a good thing? I do not understand.

Perhaps you should explore why it might be a bad thing. I refuse to accept any argument that refers to the 'progression of our species' because that is a disgustingly arrogant notion typically put forward by people who suppose the autocracy of mankind in their sole - yet mistaken - power. See: Nou.

quote:

Not really. Appeal to authority is simply the name of a false argument-form in which one attemts to portray a person or work as authoritarian, and therefore as an argument in itself.

I am well aware of its red-herring status...

quote:

No, I did not. I have never claimed that simply the fact that intelligent people believe (or dont believe) something, is an argument for its state. I mentioned Einstein and Hawking because they clearly show that intelligent people or physicists not necessarily have to be right, because it is impossible that both believers and nonbelievers of them are right.

Such a pre-occupation with being right. It seems a rather convenient portion of recorded science is only concerned with 'being right' when it suits its agenda; is not a great deal of the entire scientific method being completely wrong, in lieu of failed experimentation and subsequent test results? Is it only "science" when it's correct, or more specifically, conducive to observable documentation one bestows a great deal of faith in the veracity of, given supposed peer-review?

quote:

I thought frankly that was pretty obvious. How can you get the absurd idea that I presented ​​them as arguments?

Likewise. I merely brought up the notion not because theoretical physicists are supposedly educated professionals in the very forefront of our embryonic paradigm, but because the datum they are inclined to formulate with is wrought with the chaotic behaviour of subatomics and celestial contradictions even the educated man would have no idea how to correlate. The very nature of their occupations practically demands a philosophy of sorts that must accommodate for a unifying force to give reason to the completely scientific observations that give rise to their theorems.

I am not saying it required to be spiritual before one enters theoretical physics - I am saying that as one shapes their understandings of the cosmos and its interplay upon mankind, it is practically unavoidable to surmise that there is an order to things. Personally, I do not think you can call this "God" is any tribal conscience, but might there be a being or a force that dictates this universal texture? Suddenly, it doesn't seem so outlandish.

quote:

Einstein was probably a pantheist - that is. He called nature God. That is exactly the same as being an atheist, because nature is not a god in any meaningful sense. It is fully certain that he did not believe in personal gods.

No, it is not exactly the same. It is not the same at all.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker That's some fine mental gymnastics for you, sparky.

I love the word "meaningful" - as though its importance is obfuscated by... well, personal meaning, of course! Isn't that the same for everyone? Shit.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Perhaps you should explore why it might be a bad thing. I refuse to accept any argument that refers to the 'progression of our species' because that is a disgustingly arrogant notion typically put forward by people who suppose the autocracy of mankind in their sole - yet mistaken - power. See: Nou. I am well aware of its red-herring status... Such a pre-occupation with being right. It seems a rather convenient portion of recorded science is only concerned with 'being right' when it suits its agenda; is not a great deal of the entire scientific method being completely wrong, in lieu of failed experimentation and subsequent test results? Is it only "science" when it's correct, or more specifically, conducive to observable documentation one bestows a great deal of faith in the veracity of, given supposed peer-review? Likewise. I merely brought up the notion not because theoretical physicists are supposedly educated professionals in the very forefront of our embryonic paradigm, but because the datum they are inclined to formulate with is wrought with the chaotic behaviour of subatomics and celestial contradictions even the educated man would have no idea how to correlate. The very nature of their occupations practically demands a philosophy of sorts that must accommodate for a unifying force to give reason to the completely scientific observations that give rise to their theorems. I am not saying it required to be spiritual before one enters theoretical physics - I am saying that as one shapes their understandings of the cosmos and its interplay upon mankind, it is practically unavoidable to surmise that there is an order to things. Personally, I do not think you can call this "God" is any tribal conscience, but might there be a being or a force that dictates this universal texture? Suddenly, it doesn't seem so outlandish. No, it is not exactly the same. It is not the same at all.

I love it when turn on your thinking cap, my dictionary hasn't seen this much action since the last spelling test I cheated on.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack Einstein was probably a pantheist - that is. He called nature God. That is exactly the same as being an atheist, because nature is not a god in any meaningful sense. It is fully certain that he did not believe in personal gods.

Yep, completely the same thing. 100%. For sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I love the word "meaningful" - as though its importance is obfuscated by... well, personal meaning, of course! Isn't that the same for everyone? Shit.

It's funny how someone trying to disprove the existence of God infers their own inability to prove the existence of logic.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker It's funny how someone trying to disprove the existence of God infers their own inability to prove the existence of logic.

I've never understood why anyone ever tries to prove or disprove the existence of God these days. I figured after Descartes' embarrassing attempt (I feel bad for the guy, he tried so hard) people would have given it up. I had a logic professor try year and it was just bad. Needless to say I'm thinking about retaking the class (from someone else) as I didn't fucking learn much.

Philosophy of God was one of the most frustrating classes I ever took. It was so hard not to just be like "are you fucking kidding me?" to so many of the arguments the professor made almost every class.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I've never understood why anyone ever tries to prove or disprove the existence of God these days. I figured after Descartes' embarrassing attempt (I feel bad for the guy, he tried so hard) people would have given it up. I had a logic professor try year and it was just bad. Needless to say I'm thinking about retaking the class (from someone else) as I didn't fucking learn much.

I've never understood it, either. It seems like there's too many unknowable factors that have to be known in order for either case to be made. What most discussions descend to is pointing out the inconsistencies in arguments (or the Bible) from either side. Personally, I'd love to take a class in logic.






I just Kant afford it, right now.

1:

Therefore, God exists.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Indeed, the gospels do speak of great crowds; however, crowd is a relative term

Well, it also only says approximately the number of people who should have listened to his lectures. Thousands of people were at the time a very large number - especially for something as unproductive as listening to a teacher. People were busy surviving.

I do not really understand your explanation here.

quote:

What? It's not circular logic.

Yes. You say he is a legend - you have no arguments for that, but a legend means a story based on reality. The fact that you assume he is a legend, is an assumption that his story is based on reality.
1: Jesus is based on reality (a legend) because one calls him a legend.
2: One calls Jesus a legend, because it is assumes he is based on reality.
- It's circular, unless there are other reasons to call it a legend - and there isn't.

quote:

Of course it is... if something is probable then it is reasonable to believe it.

It's right there, you're wrong. A belief is an idea which is assumed to be true, not one which is assumed to be likely. It is not rational to believe in something because it is likely. It is rational to consider it likely.

For example. I think it is likely that there is life somewhere in space. The incredible amount of space means that it would be very strange if Earth was the only place where life had evolved. But I do not believe in extraterrestrial life. That would mean that I held it as true that it existed - and that is irrational. There is a difference.

You may consider it is likely that Jesus existed. But believing in him, even just as a human, is irrational without evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam I love it when turn on your thinking cap, my dictionary hasn't seen this much action since the last spelling test I cheated on.

yeah, i wish people annoyed hal more often. he's an absolute pleasure to read.

quote:

Originally posted by Znack It's right there, you're wrong. A belief is an idea which is assumed to be true, not one which is assumed to be likely. It is not rational to believe in something because it is likely. It is rational to consider it likely.

I think your weakness in English is working against you here. If something is probable then there is suffcient evidence to establish a presumption that it is true. If something is presumed to be true then it is rational to proceed on that presumption, which is to say believe it to be true. Of course if the evidence changes then one should change their evaluation of the probability and subsequently their belief. I'm not sure why you're arguing this point. If probability is not the test for whether or not something should be believed then we need to throw out our legal systems, most scientific theories, nearly all philisophical systems, and just about the sum total of human knowledge, as nearly everything relies on a presumption of truth at some point that is based on probability.


Are you that small minded that you honestly cannot fathom that something can be true without first hand observation of direct physical evidence? If that is the case how can you believe anything? You've not actually seen Neptune with your own eyes or otherwise directly observed it... I certainly haven't... by your thinking it would be irrational for either of us to believe it exists. As Hal mentioned earlier "didn't see it; didn't happen."

You have now provided sufficient evidence for one to reasonably conclude that you are far too idiotic to engage in further discussion with.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yeah, i wish people annoyed hal more often. he's an absolute pleasure to read.

I disagree... everytime he busts out elegant arguments it takes away from my appreciation of his photobucket posts because I'm forced to consider the deeper meaning of "vagina face" and similar images.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.