why are some of the pivotal events of jesus' life as recorded in the gospels shamelessly borrowed from pagan predecessors?
the following list is not supposed to be exhaustive: immaculate conception, son of god, death and resurrection, the last supper celebrated with bread and wine, an incarnate god who dies on a cross to redeem all sins, .... h. .
.
Why are some of the pivotal events of Jesus' life as recorded in the Gospels shamelessly borrowed from pagan predecessors? The following list is not supposed to be exhaustive: immaculate conception, son of God, death and resurrection, the Last Supper celebrated with bread and wine, an incarnate God who dies on a cross to redeem all sins, ...
H.
from where did existence come from?
in what period of time did existence appear???
wait a minute...how can existence come from nothing...when you cannot get nothing from nothing?
God has been traditionally understood as being eternal. This does not mean that he has lived an infinite time, this would place him within time. It means that he is eternal, which is timeless existence.
I know there has been much debate devoted to these questions on God's ontology. But still I doubt whether it is possible to be at the same time outside time and space and yet being supposed to influence and steer events within these categories. If god evades certain categories how can he be anything different than a redundant entity humans shouldn't care much about?
from where did existence come from?
in what period of time did existence appear???
wait a minute...how can existence come from nothing...when you cannot get nothing from nothing?
This is quite a confusing post, Blackboo. Try not to overuse capital letters, it looks like you are shouting and that's not the best strategy to put your arguments forward. Anyway, apart from these formal remarks, I'd like to say some things about the contents. In fact your post boils down to these assumptions:
1. Existence is eternal --> 2. Life is eternal ---> God
However, the jump from eternal existence to eternal life is not justified. Lifeless things exist. This flagrant extrapolation of life to existence invalidates your argument.
Another thing I don't understand about your post: you're talking about the universe how it continues forever and then you say, well that shows us what God is about. That's called pantheism, Blackboo, it's the belief God and his creation are equal. How could we know God by observing the universe when he's actually separate from it?
watch, feb 1 2008 p.4 "if we really are the product of evolution and there is no creator, the human race would in a sense, be an orphan.
mankind would have no source of superior wisdom to consult- no one to help us solve our problems.
we would have to rely on human wisdom to avert enviromental disaster, to solve political conflicts, and to guide us through our personal crises.
Mankind would have no source of superior wisdom to consult- no one to help us solve our problems.
That's called the postmodern condition (Lyotard, 1979) or the collapse of the "Grand Narrative". Should we mourn over the death of these big stories? I don't think so, life is more exciting, risky and adventurous without.
after going through real one's last posts and his favorite 'i'm only quoting scriptures' argument (regarding homosexuality), i wonder whether you agree on this one:.
it's impossible to be a moral person when you consider biblical rules as inspired.
.
1Co 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
I asked for a definition of the principle 'love God', not for a broad definition of 'love your neighbor' in general. For most people 'love God' means living up to his commandments, no matter whether they testify to this definition of love or not. So the question is, how far goes your 'love god' when 'love your neighbor' is in danger, for instance, when excluding some groups from salvation.
If you believe the differences between love and obedience are small, then maybe you have a point.
So you don't obey God?
luke 4:16-19 jesus, went back to nazareth, where he had been brought up, and as usual he went to the meeting place on the sabbath.
when he stood up to read from the scriptures, he was given the book of isaiah the prophet.
he opened it and read,.
Do you feel that Jesus can fufil His purpose in your life?
I'm not in jail, I'm not blind and my suffering is bearable, so what should I feel?
after going through real one's last posts and his favorite 'i'm only quoting scriptures' argument (regarding homosexuality), i wonder whether you agree on this one:.
it's impossible to be a moral person when you consider biblical rules as inspired.
.
This is the difference between the JWs and Christians.
Most so-called 'christians' (does this cover term really exist or does it simply mean 'I am a born-again and neither JW's nor catholics will gain everlasting life') tend to blow up the small differences between JWs and 'christians' while at the same time trivializing the many similarities.
If someone loves God and his neighbor more than himself there is no law left for him to break.
This is not necessarily true, it depends on your definition of the principle 'love God'.
after going through real one's last posts and his favorite 'i'm only quoting scriptures' argument (regarding homosexuality), i wonder whether you agree on this one:.
it's impossible to be a moral person when you consider biblical rules as inspired.
.
Under that scheme, something you yourself find morally abhorrent would possibly not be so to a different moral agent residing in a different time or place whose own moral sense and logic had been molded and informed by a completely alien formative experience than your own.
Of course our moral sense is situated within a given context, community, circumstance, past experiences, etc. Real One appeals to a very explicit authority, while FD relies on a more inherent, though perhaps not less restricitve, form of authority. However, that's not the question. I wonder whether it's possible to compare two moral agents as far as their morality is concerned and independent of the formative forces around. To perform this challenging task we need a more or less 'objective' referential framework by means of which we can determine someone's degree of morality. I agree with FD that the only way we can do this is by taking into account our species' moral sense endowed by social evolution.
after going through real one's last posts and his favorite 'i'm only quoting scriptures' argument (regarding homosexuality), i wonder whether you agree on this one:.
it's impossible to be a moral person when you consider biblical rules as inspired.
.
After going through real one's last posts and his favorite 'I'm only quoting scriptures' argument (regarding homosexuality), I wonder whether you agree on this one:
It's impossible to be a moral person when you consider biblical rules as inspired.
i know from my own life experience, that repressed sexual expression leads to externalizing that repression and projecting it upon others.
fear, anger, and self loathing is the bottom line.
when i finially was freed of the jw beliefs, and then later came out to friends (actually, i was outed), i had a new awareness dawn on me one day.
It is another example of the left's fine tolerance for other views than its own.
Forcher,
Tolerance means intolerance of intolerance, so no problems there.
Hamilgauche.
