Randy's recipe for warmed-over Pascal's Wager. Still dry and tasteless.

(May 16, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Trinity - Basics
 
Understanding the inner life of an infinite, triune God is beyond us, and what we do know is only because of He has chosen to reveal it to us. 

An infinite God has chosen to reveal itself through a book that's unreliable at best and susceptible to mistranslations and misinterpretations. Doesn't look like the best plan for a god...

(May 16, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: There is only one God.
Within that one God are three persons.
They are not three Gods.

How is that possible? Well, consider that a dog is a being but not a person. A man is a being and one person. God is a being and three persons. From this you can see that while we usually think one being = one person, in fact, the number of persons "in" a being can vary depending on the nature of that being.

What is a 'person'? How do you define personhood? Do you have *actual* examples of multiple persons "in" a single being? In absence of those, how can you say that personhood is not linked to the physicality of a living being?

(May 16, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: [color=black][size=small] 
Two graphics that might help:

The shield design is cool and all, but I'd go for a much simpler and less-mental-acrobatics-demanding "God is not", thank you.

(May 16, 2015 at 7:25 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

 

This one would kinda make sense, if only personhood could be compared to a shadow.

(May 16, 2015 at 6:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 16, 2015 at 11:53 am)whateverist Wrote: This is a tribute thread.  Perhaps we can discuss not only the historical accuracy of the NT but also why anyone should give a flying fuck if people from 2000 years ago really believed what they wrote.

Whateverist-

In one sense, it doesn't matter whether they believed it or not. It only matters whether or not it was true.

If it wasn't, then your assessment is correct. But if it was, then since much of the content of the NT concerns what happens after we die, many people would find that highly relevant. 

I agree. Likewise with historical accuracy. We can concede that they believed their account of events and also allow that the bible today is historically linked to what people wrote at that time. But what does that prove? Certainly nothing about it being true.

(May 16, 2015 at 8:55 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(May 16, 2015 at 6:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Whateverist-

In one sense, it doesn't matter whether they believed it or not. It only matters whether or not it was true.

If it wasn't, then your assessment is correct. But if it was, then since much of the content of the NT concerns what happens after we die, many people would find that highly relevant. 

I agree.  Likewise with historical accuracy.  We can concede that they believed their account of events and also allow that the bible today is historically linked to what people wrote at that time.  But what does that prove?  Certainly nothing about it being true.

Bingo! (A little Catholic lingo there.)

One thing we can say with confidence, the authors of the NT BELIEVED what they were proclaiming.

Now, all we have to do is figure out if there was any justification for that belief...that's the subject of my thread on the historical reliability of the NT.

Thanks for clarifying that point.

Quote:One thing we can say with confidence, the authors of the NT BELIEVED what they were proclaiming.

The 9-11 hijackers expected virgin pussy every night in paradise.  Who gives a shit what idiots believe?

(May 16, 2015 at 9:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(May 16, 2015 at 8:55 pm)whateverist Wrote: I agree.  Likewise with historical accuracy.  We can concede that they believed their account of events and also allow that the bible today is historically linked to what people wrote at that time.  But what does that prove?  Certainly nothing about it being true.

Bingo! (A little Catholic lingo there.)

One thing we can say with confidence, the authors of the NT BELIEVED what they were proclaiming.

Now, all we have to do is figure out if there was any justification for that belief...that's the subject of my thread on the historical reliability of the NT.

Thanks for clarifying that point.

That is not at all my point. I didn't say I do concede either historical accuracy or the sincerity of its authors. I only said that doing so would have no bearing on the truth of anything written in the bible.

If you want to argue for either of those points be my guest. It will pointless and get you nothing. But knock yourself out.

(May 16, 2015 at 9:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:One thing we can say with confidence, the authors of the NT BELIEVED what they were proclaiming.

The 9-11 hijackers expected virgin pussy every night in paradise.  Who gives a shit what idiots believe?

Thank you for sealing off another rabbit trail. I appreciate that very much.

You see, many people argue that the authors of the NT made the whole thing up; IOW, they knew it was a lie, but they conspired to tell it anyway.

Now, we can go forward with the idea that the authors genuinely BELIEVED what they proclaimed...even if they were idiots. 

At least they were HONEST idiots.

---

(May 16, 2015 at 9:16 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(May 16, 2015 at 9:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Bingo! (A little Catholic lingo there.)

One thing we can say with confidence, the authors of the NT BELIEVED what they were proclaiming.

Now, all we have to do is figure out if there was any justification for that belief...that's the subject of my thread on the historical reliability of the NT.

Thanks for clarifying that point.

That is not at all my point.  I didn't say I do concede either historical accuracy or the sincerity of its authors.  I only said that doing so would have no bearing on the truth of anything written in the bible.

If you want to argue for either of those points be my guest.  It will pointless and get you nothing.  But knock yourself out.

No worries. I know you have not conceded the historical accuracy of the NT, yet. You need more evidence.

But you have agreed that the authors BELIEVED what they wrote which is a far cry from making up a lie which they knew to be false and then spreading it around.

Agreed?

What was it Colonel Ingersoll said:

"They knew no better, but I do not propose to follow the example of a barbarian because he was honestly a barbarian."

Swap out idiot for barbarian if the point is too high for you.

(May 16, 2015 at 9:26 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: At least they were HONEST idiots.

Kindred spirits, huh, Randy?

(May 16, 2015 at 9:30 pm)Stimbo Wrote: What was it Colonel Ingersoll said:

"They knew no better, but I do not propose to follow the example of a barbarian because he was honestly a barbarian."

Swap out idiot for barbarian if the point is too high for you.

Interesting quote. Here's one of my favorites:

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues;” because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God;” because they “say indulgence is a permission to commit sin;” because the Pope “is a Fascist;” because the Church “is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things, it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.

If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned.

Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because he called Himself the Truth.

Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly, it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. ... the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many miss its obviousness..."

--Bishop Fulton Sheen