Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
July 16, 2019 at 10:46 am (This post was last modified: July 16, 2019 at 10:47 am by GrandizerII.)
(July 16, 2019 at 9:52 am)tackattack Wrote: I would wager a bet that if you called the average Western Christian a polytheist, they'd be confused and offended. Perhaps it's just lack of refined teaching or exposure to other perspectives or beliefs.
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect;... "
This is not modalism. 3 beings (in relation) one nature (in essence). It's not like it's that difficult of a concept. Using a more ironic example than the shamrock, let's use Cerberus. One dog, three dog heads; each independent but in essence one. Similar to Tertullian and Aquinas thoughts on the subject.
I disagree that it's not that difficult of a concept. In trying to force the Trinity to make sense and make it not sound so difficult, some Christians have resorted to a form of polytheism, modalism, or "tripartism", while sincerely believing they're holding to the mainstream Trinity doctrine.
Again, the Trinity is one God (one being), the Father is that one being, the Son is that one being, the Holy Spirit is that one being, but they are each distinct from one another in the sense that the Father is an "I", the Son is another "I", and the Holy Spirit is yet another "I", but it is nevertheless the same one being/entity. The Father is not a part/head of God, and neither is the Son or the Holy Spirit. So neither the shamrock example nor the Cerberus one accurately illustrates the concept of the Trinity.
In other words, God is not greater in totality than any of the Persons of God.
July 16, 2019 at 11:33 am (This post was last modified: July 16, 2019 at 11:34 am by LadyForCamus.)
(July 15, 2019 at 12:14 pm)tackattack Wrote:
(July 11, 2019 at 10:21 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Okay, so, resurrection after three days of actual complete death you accept is scientifically impossible, and would require a miracle. And, you believe that particular miracle did, in fact, happen as described in the Bible. But, talking donkeys and bushes, which are also described in the Bible, and which you also accept as scientifically impossible without a miracle, you do not hold a positive belief that either of those literally happened. Is that an accurate summation of your position? If so, would you mind explaining the method you used to determine which of these claims was likely a true miracle, and which were likely not? In other words, do you have a confidence level of one supernatural claim that is higher than your confidence level in another, and how did you reach those levels?
I do hold a positive belief in miracles. Burning bush, talking donkey, water from a rock, miraculous healing, walking on water, controlling storms, etc. I do have a confidence level in the resurrection miracle over most of the other miracles. Most of that is probably due to indoctrination and bias.
I respect and applaud your raw honesty here. That’s awesome. To push just a little further if you don’t mind; being cognizant of how bias and indoctrination can influence confidence levels doesn’t cause to you re-evaluate those levels? Would you agree that if you were raised Muslim, your confidence level in the proposition that Jesus is the son of god would be far lower than it is today? Based on that example, would you say that indoctrination is a valid method for arriving at confidence levels about such claims?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
I’m surprised that no one ran with the obvious conclusion to the OPQ.
Why would we expect the things they say to match contemporary knowledge? They didn’t have access to it it, and maybe the gods are idiots to begin with?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(July 16, 2019 at 9:52 am)tackattack Wrote: I would wager a bet that if you called the average Western Christian a polytheist, they'd be confused and offended. Perhaps it's just lack of refined teaching or exposure to other perspectives or beliefs.
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect;... "
This is not modalism. 3 beings (in relation) one nature (in essence). It's not like it's that difficult of a concept. Using a more ironic example than the shamrock, let's use Cerberus. One dog, three dog heads; each independent but in essence one. Similar to Tertullian and Aquinas thoughts on the subject.
I disagree that it's not that difficult of a concept. In trying to force the Trinity to make sense and make it not sound so difficult, some Christians have resorted to a form of polytheism, modalism, or "tripartism", while sincerely believing they're holding to the mainstream Trinity doctrine.
Again, the Trinity is one God (one being), the Father is that one being, the Son is that one being, the Holy Spirit is that one being, but they are each distinct from one another in the sense that the Father is an "I", the Son is another "I", and the Holy Spirit is yet another "I", but it is nevertheless the same one being/entity. The Father is not a part/head of God, and neither is the Son or the Holy Spirit. So neither the shamrock example nor the Cerberus one accurately illustrates the concept of the Trinity.
In other words, God is not greater in totality than any of the Persons of God.
It may be complex, but I don't think it's difficult, which is probably my biases talking. To quote you're decent link "He is three in a different way than he is one." People may find it more difficult because it seems to be self-contradictory. If you can understand "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" then you can understand this concept (not that you don't of course). That is why I clarified earlier, 3 beings (in relation) one nature (in essence) and 1x1x1=1. Regardless, I believe at least you and I are on the same page as to what the Trinity is, just not whether it's a comprehendible or well demonstrable abstract idea.
@LadyForCamus - Thanks I try to be. Actually on that honesty note, I think I missed addressing a question you had, but I can't seem to find it. If I didn't address anything it's merely due to my inability to organize , not my unwillingness to address.
"doesn’t cause to you re-evaluate those levels?" - regularly, hence my mere presence here.
"Would you agree that if you were raised Muslim, your confidence level in the proposition that Jesus is the son of god would be far lower than it is today?" I can't see that it would be less confident than the "average miracle" but yes lower than it is today.
"Based on that example, would you say that indoctrination is a valid method for arriving at confidence levels about such claims? " valid as a tool, definitely not. Acknowledgeable, as an influence on the lens of experience, definitely. I can't take the green tint out of my view of the world without acknowledging that my lens has some green in it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a color green on the other side of that lens.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
July 16, 2019 at 2:18 pm (This post was last modified: July 16, 2019 at 2:19 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(July 16, 2019 at 1:49 pm)tackattack Wrote: @LadyForCamus - Thanks I try to be. Actually on that honesty note, I think I missed addressing a question you had, but I can't seem to find it. If I didn't address anything it's merely due to my inability to organize , not my unwillingness to address.
"doesn’t cause to you re-evaluate those levels?" - regularly, hence my mere presence here.
No worries! With two little boys running circles around me all day, I can totally empathize with the struggle to organize!
Quote:"Would you agree that if you were raised Muslim, your confidence level in the proposition that Jesus is the son of god would be far lower than it is today?"
Quote:I can't see that it would be less confident than the "average miracle" but yes lower than it is today.
If you were a believing Muslim (raised Muslim) instead of a Christian, would you agree that your confidence level in the claim that Jesus is the savior and son of god would likely be zero?
Quote:valid as a tool, definitely not. Acknowledgeable, as an influence on the lens of experience, definitely. I can't take the green tint out of my view of the world without acknowledging that my lens has some green in it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a color green on the other side of that lens.
I really like your analogy here. Going further with it, by what process or method could you make the distinction between the green tint on the inside of your lens and any actual green that may be on the outside?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
July 16, 2019 at 3:21 pm (This post was last modified: July 16, 2019 at 3:25 pm by tackattack.)
(July 16, 2019 at 2:18 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:
"Would you agree that if you were raised Muslim, your confidence level in the proposition that Jesus is the son of god would be far lower than it is today?"
Quote:If you were a believing Muslim (raised Muslim) instead of a Christian, would you agree that your confidence level in the claim that Jesus is the savior and son of god would likely be zero?
I really like your analogy here. Going further with it, by what process or method could you make the distinction between the green tint on the inside of your lens and any actual green that may be on the outside?
1. My understanding of the entirety of Muslim belief is shallow, so please forgive any misconceptions. The short answer no not zero. To my knowledge they are to read the torah, New Testament and Quran and I believe another book. I believe they acknowledge Jesus as the head prophet and a miracle worker. I believe I would really question if I'm supposed to believe this guy Jesus when he says he is the son of God. I would probably be some sort of messianic Imam. Like a messianic Jew but for Allah. I mean they accept miracles and are supposed to believe the prophets but if the prophet says he's the Son of God, but there can't be a son of God, because God is one.. doesn't follow to me. I think the major incompatibility is the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity, plus the additional books and a belief in prophets (some Christian denominations do the latter).
2. Using the same analogy. There are 2 points. I don't believe people can train themselves out of their unconscious biases, by definition. To identify biases I use tools like Joharri's Window and Inter-observer reliability tests to help identify biases. Your question was about minimizing bias, though. For that I use things like seeking fairness, consistent review or continuous improvement, refining and clarity of concepts and beliefs, multiple reliable source inputs, a situational approach and I tend to self-dialogue with a six hat method. If you're not familiar with that I will get you a link
By taking a good self-inventory and minimizing the tint in your lens that you have identified as green, all those things outside that you thought were green would then stand out as something different or change too, which would necessitate a change in paradigm. A forest green would still be consistently forest green even though your tint is now more olive. you would notice no change in those things that are substantially (not necessarily objectively) true and be able to detect less of what is now in alignment with your new abstract paradigm. You bump that up against your self-inventory , look for any cognitive dissonance and start again.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
"Would you agree that if you were raised Muslim, your confidence level in the proposition that Jesus is the son of god would be far lower than it is today?"
I really like your analogy here. Going further with it, by what process or method could you make the distinction between the green tint on the inside of your lens and any actual green that may be on the outside?
1. My understanding of the entirety of Muslim belief is shallow, so please forgive any misconceptions. The short answer no not zero. To my knowledge they are to read the torah, New Testament and Quran and I believe another book. I believe they acknowledge Jesus as the head prophet and a miracle worker. I believe I would really question if I'm supposed to believe this guy Jesus when he says he is the son of God. I would probably be some sort of messianic Imam. Like a messianic Jew but for Allah. I mean they accept miracles and are supposed to believe the prophets but if the prophet says he's the Son of God, but there can't be a son of God, because God is one.. doesn't follow to me. I think the major incompatibility is the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity, plus the additional books and a belief in prophets (some Christian denominations do the latter).
2. Using the same analogy. There are 2 points. I don't believe people can train themselves out of their unconscious biases, by definition. To identify biases I use tools like Joharri's Window and Inter-observer reliability tests to help identify biases. Your question was about minimizing bias, though. For that I use things like seeking fairness, consistent review or continuous improvement, refining and clarity of concepts and beliefs, multiple reliable source inputs, a situational approach and I tend to self-dialogue with a six hat method. If you're not familiar with that I will get you a link
By taking a good self-inventory and minimizing the tint in your lens that you have identified as green, all those things outside that you thought were green would then stand out as something different or change too, which would necessitate a change in paradigm. A forest green would still be consistently forest green even though your tint is now more olive. you would notice no change in those things that are substantially (not necessarily objectively) true and be able to detect less of what is now in alignment with your new abstract paradigm. You bump that up against your self-inventory , look for any cognitive dissonance and start again.
Jesus is the Prophet of God, not His son. This was added during the Nicene Council after Jesus left. Jesus never claimed to be the son of God (Allah). The "Father" is God, the "Son" is Jesus and the "Holy Spirit" is the Angel Gabriel.
(July 16, 2019 at 3:21 pm)tackattack Wrote: 1. My understanding of the entirety of Muslim belief is shallow, so please forgive any misconceptions. The short answer no not zero. To my knowledge they are to read the torah, New Testament and Quran and I believe another book. I believe they acknowledge Jesus as the head prophet and a miracle worker. I believe I would really question if I'm supposed to believe this guy Jesus when he says he is the son of God. I would probably be some sort of messianic Imam. Like a messianic Jew but for Allah. I mean they accept miracles and are supposed to believe the prophets but if the prophet says he's the Son of God, but there can't be a son of God, because God is one.. doesn't follow to me. I think the major incompatibility is the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity, plus the additional books and a belief in prophets (some Christian denominations do the latter).
2. Using the same analogy. There are 2 points. I don't believe people can train themselves out of their unconscious biases, by definition. To identify biases I use tools like Joharri's Window and Inter-observer reliability tests to help identify biases. Your question was about minimizing bias, though. For that I use things like seeking fairness, consistent review or continuous improvement, refining and clarity of concepts and beliefs, multiple reliable source inputs, a situational approach and I tend to self-dialogue with a six hat method. If you're not familiar with that I will get you a link
By taking a good self-inventory and minimizing the tint in your lens that you have identified as green, all those things outside that you thought were green would then stand out as something different or change too, which would necessitate a change in paradigm. A forest green would still be consistently forest green even though your tint is now more olive. you would notice no change in those things that are substantially (not necessarily objectively) true and be able to detect less of what is now in alignment with your new abstract paradigm. You bump that up against your self-inventory , look for any cognitive dissonance and start again.
Jesus is the Prophet of God, not His son. This was added during the Nicene Council after Jesus left. Jesus never claimed to be the son of God (Allah). The "Father" is God, the "Son" is Jesus and the "Holy Spirit" is the Angel Gabriel.
And the battle over whose bullshit is the one true bullshit continues.
(July 11, 2019 at 10:02 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:
(July 11, 2019 at 7:09 am)soldierofGod Wrote: Before the revelation of the Qur'an, God revealed other messages to the ancient peoples to their respective languages. So everyone got the warning. The Message of Salvation was already transmitted to those who lived, for those who will live God completes His Final Message with the last Prophet (Muhammad) destined until the end of time and all places (all humanity). The last message is the Koran. It is what you say, God reveals His Message clearly to all, in all times and places, it is the only way. One of the few surviving languages of those times is Arabic. Latin, language of powerful Roman empire, died (dead language) while Arabic, language spoken by desert tribes was preserved by the Word of God. The last Message of God is completed in Mecca, the City of God, the Kaaba (cube) is His House. Mecca was the place where God spoke to man.
But there are lots of languages from the 5th century that survive: Greek, Chinese, Irish, Tamil, Hebrew and so on. What you were asked, in essence, is why the final revelation of God was given only to a handful of desert nomads in a very small corner of the world. If the message was so bloody important, why didn't it also appear in Athens, Anyang, Waterford, Varanasi, Jerusalem, or any of a number of other places with higher literacy rates than Arabia? Why wouldn't God deliver such a message to everyone , instead of a select few?
I'll give you a hint: It's has something to do with religions being home-grown and there not being some supreme Lawgiver who gives a rat's charbroiled arse about humanity.
Boru
Quran, the Word of God Proof 1- Evidence in the Creation
God created the Heavens and the Earth. After that He created man from clay giving him the best form *. To make Himself known, God uses signs in His creation. God says:
On Earth there are signs for those who have certainty. And in yourselves. Are you not going to see?
Quran 51: 20-21
That we truly create man in the best form
Quran 95: 4
Many architects, mathematicians and other researchers (Marcus Vitruvius, Adolf Seizing, Erns Neufert, Le Corbusier, etc.) realized that the human body and nature follow a single common ratio. This ratio is present in all creation, in every part, in every detail, included in the human being. This ratio is known as the Golden Number or Golden Ratio or Divine Proportion. It is represented by the Greek letter Phi (in honor of the Greek sculptor Phidias?).The Golden Number is mentioned in Quran by God (see below)
The ratio is equivalent to 1.618
This Golden Number consists of the sum of two measurements among themselves. When these measures are added together, a sequence is formed which is called the Fibonacci Sequence. This sequence was discovered by the Christian mathematician Leonardo Pisano (known by the name of Fibonacci) during the Middle Ages, in Pisa (now Italy). Fibonacci was educated in North Africa, later published the Liber Abacci with which he introduced the Indo-Arabic numbering system in Europe. Many sages (architects, sculptors, musicians, painters, mathematicians, philosophers, poets, etc.) were based on the works of Fibonacci (and the Indo-Arabic numbering system). Fibonacci Sequence: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55, ...
Basically this sequence of Fibonacci is done by adding the last two numbers (in bold) starting with 1: 1 + 1 = 2 + 1 = 3 + 2 = 5 + 3 = 8 + 5 = 13 + 8 = 21 + 13 = 34 + 21 = 55 ...
To give form to this sequence, the Fibonacci Spiral is used, which consists of a set of connected quarter-circles drawn within a series of squares (called a golden rectangle) regulated by Fibonacci numbers. This form is found in all creation and in the human being itself.
This ratio is used by many architects, painters, composers, designers, etc. as a basis for their masterpieces to create the most beautiful shapes and figures in the face of human perception. This Golden Number is irrational but it is generally 1.6. You can see the Golden Number and its sequence in the creation and man itself (search images). That said, as I said before, this Number or Golden Reason is mentioned by God in the Qur'an.
It is true that the first House that was erected for men was that of Bakka (Mecca), blessed and a guide for all the worlds.
Koran 3:96
But, what is the relationship between the Gold Number and Mecca? The Mekka was built by Adam, the first man, and later destroyed by the Flood. It was rebuilt by Abraham and his son Ishmael by order of God. With time it was filled with idolatry and with Muhammad it was reestablished again to monotheism. Mecca was the first human settlement, it has always been there. Mecca is the city of God. Precisely this Golden Ratio or Divine Proportion, if applied on Earth (map), it results in the location of Mecca on Earth (search in map image). Verse 96 of Sura 3 contains 47 words. From the beginning of the verse to the word Bekkat (Mekka) there are 29 words, that is 47/29 = 1.6 (the Golden Number). From the word Bekkat to the end of the verse there are 18 more words, that is 29/18 = 1,6. God says in the Koran:
And [by] this secure city [Makkah], We have certainly created man in the best form
Quran 95:3-4
In the original text (Arabic, original language) verse 95:4 God(Allah) says about the creation of man:
We have certainly created man* in the best form
Quran 95:4
1.Mankind In Arabic this verse contains 25 letters. From the beginning of the verse to the word alinsan (mankind) there are 15 letters, that is 25/15 = 1,6 (the Golden Number). The connection between the form * and the Gold Number is undeniable.
Verily, We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran in order that you may understand.
Koran 12:2 [Traduction by Mohsin Khan]
Do you understand now why the translated version is far from the true Qur'an? The Bible long ago moved away from its original message when it was translated from Aramaic, not to mention human misrepresentations during the process. A non-Arabic Koran is no longer the Koran, the Word of God.
According to Averroes (Ibn Rushd), Muslim philosopher and doctor of the Middle Ages, he affirmed that there are two ways to reach God: through Philosophy (Reason) and Religion (Islam). Philos means in Greek language ‘love’, that is, ‘beauty or wonder’ (before the human perception). Reason comes from the Old French ‘reisun’, of a variant of ‘ratio, rationis’ (Latin) that means ‘calculation, reckoning’.
Many are amazed by works created from clay/ground of the earth by men, but few reflect on their creation(from clay) and what is around them(in the earth). God honored and blessed the man by giving him the best of form among his creatures. This proves the existence of an Intelligent Designer, of a Creator, of God.
They asked the Prophet Muhammad: What is your miracle? The Prophet, peace be upon him, answered: the Qur'an. -Why in Arabic and not another language? -Why in Mecca and not somewhere else? -Why in an illiterate desert tribe and not others? I think these questions have already been answered. How did Muhammad, an arabian illiterate pastor of the desert, know all this if mathematics and numbers were still very primitive in his time? It was simply inspired by the Lord of the Worlds. The Koran, revealed more than 1400 years ago in the middle of the desert and ignorance.
On Earth there are signs for those who have certainty. And in yourselves. Are you not going to see?
Quran 51: 20-21
Oh Man[kind]! What separated you from your Lord, the Generous? The One Who created you, formed you and balanced you, giving you the shape He wanted.
Koran 82: 6-8
Now judge for yourselves and:
So what yet causes you to deny the Judgment? Is not God the most just of judges?
