[Aether Audio]

Scott,

WOW! - and thank you for this very eloquent post.  This is a perfect example of the type of dialogue this thread was intended to encourage(and not because its in agreement with my personal beliefs either). I might add though, I couldn't have put it better myself.

Proof of anything? No.  Stimulating & challanging? Very much so.  Will someone benefit?  Maybe.  The following give us hope that this will be so.

I will now leave this discussion for a time, and for what its worth, the words I leave with will not be my own.  I am but a man and I have no desire to be "elevated" by the self glorification of my own intellectual and verbal prowess.  Rather, Iwould prefer that "He who is worthy" be lifted up.  In the end, the WORD will be all that remains.

Isaiah 55:

 

6Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

   7Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

   8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

   9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
   
  10For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

   11So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Amen,
-Bob

[ScottMayo]

6Seek ye the LORD while he may be found...

Or, using a transliteration style that happens to appeal to me:

"Listen up, peoples. Get it straight, because you is on the wrong road, without a map and low on gas. Listen up; it ain't what you think, because your thinker is too small and you don't have the big picture. I'm telling you how it is and how it's gonna be, and you can listen now or you can listen later, but I don't recommend the later. Heed the words, because my words can lift you up or take you down, and it's going to be one or it's going to be the other. Listen up, or go down. I leave it to you."

I'd have serious trouble justifying all that out of the Hebrew, even with a good interlinear, but I think it catches the gist.

[LAL]

Scott,
Another interesting thought to chew on. Do you realise that in all of recorded history there is only a 120 year window in which a messiah could be born and killed in the manner predicted in the Old Testament.?  70 years after the birth of Christ there was no Israel. Jerusalem had been destroyed and the Jews dispersed.  Consequently there  was no existing Jewish Sanhedrin to bring charges against Jesus and demand his death from the Romans(and no Jewish babies being born in Bethlehem).  Up to 50 years before Jesus was born the Jews had sufficient control over their community for punishment for "offenders"  that they, not the Romans, would have administered  the punishment for his alleged crime- blasphemy,he claimed to be God.  Why is this significant?  Because the Jewish method of capital punishment  for this crime was death by stoning.  The Jews on their own would never have crucified Jesus or speared him while on the cross.  During lifetime of Jesus the Roman occupiers of Israel did not permit the Jews to administer capital punishment against Jewish law breakers. Therefore the Jewish Sanhedrin wishing to execute Jesus for blasphemy had no choice but to bring him before the Roman governor Pilate and trump up some charges against him hoping that the Romans would then do to him what they were restained from doing. The Romans' favorite capial punishment was crucifixion and spearing the victim to ensure his death, a method of death fitting the Old Testament prophesies for the Messiah, while the traditional Jewish method of stoning did not.
LAL

[ScottMayo]

Scott,
Another interesting thought to chew on. Do you realise that in all of recorded history there is only a 120 year window in which a messiah could be born and killed in the manner predicted in the Old Testament....

I didn't. I knew about the destruction of the temple in 70AD - that's always been a big deal, because Jesus mentioned that was coming. But I had never stopped to consider that yeah, when Isaiah wrote about the death, his contemporaries must have thought he was mad. They had no inkling of the Roman state at that point, and how much was going to change.

I have wondered what the people around Jesus thought when he announced the destruction of the temple, literally no stone left standing, that was coming. The one place where the atonement for sin is done, and it will be destroyed? God would never permit it! We've had this for hundreds and hundreds of years!

But, of course, Jesus knew - and they didn't - that the atonement of sin was about to be handled very, very differently, and so the temple would no longer be needed. To anyone else, it must have been eerie, crazy in the extreme.

But prophecy has always been that way. When Israel was destroyed - and stayed destroyed for millenia, lots of skeptics heaped scorn on the unfufilled OT prophecies - which could not be fufilled without Israel in existance. They looked permanently broken - what a laugh! - for almost 2,000 years.  Of course, skeptics aren't heaping much of anything any more, with Israel back in existance against all odds, and the only remaining unfufilled prophecies having a very... eschatological flavor...

Which reminds me. The rest of you folk with your various levels of disbelief - if at some point in the future you see Israel surrounded by opposing armies - I don't mean this occasional scud and border skirmish stuff, I mean it looking like Israel is going to get "pushed into the sea" in the next 24 hours - that would be a really good time to get do a little New Testament reading. A little late, maybe, but I'd still encourage it. Strongly.

[John Casler]

Which reminds me. The rest of you folk with your various levels of disbelief - if at some point in the future you see Israel surrounded by opposing armies - I don't mean this occasional scud and border skirmish stuff, I mean it looking like Israel is going to get "pushed into the sea" in the next 24 hours - that would be a really good time to get do a little New Testament reading. A little late, maybe, but I'd still encourage it. Strongly. ...

             


                                     

       

                   

[ScottMayo]

           

                                     

       

                   

I seem to have left you speechless.

And they said it couldn't be done!

[John Casler]

           

                                     

       

                   

I seem to have left you speechless.

And they said it couldn't be done!

The END is NEAR

Objects may be closer than they seem

[Occam]

Dear Arrogant & Self Absorbed,

Thank the Christian God and his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ- that a man of such...

Could you please explain the necessity/significance of using "Christian" as an adjective in describing God?

TIA,
Occam

[ScottMayo]

Dear Arrogant & Self Absorbed,

Thank the Christian God and his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ- that a man of such...

Could you please explain the necessity/significance of using "Christian" as an adjective in describing God?

TIA,
Occam

Bob's out of this thread by his own admission. If I speak for him I'll likely get it wrong, but I'll give it a shot.

In practice, Christians and Jews agree that Jews and Christians worship the same God. Each says the other does it wrong but they both understand they mean the same being. A Jew and a Christian can say "God" and have some confidence they are talking about the same thing.

Add a Moslem and it gets hazier. The conceptions are starting to get so different that a lot of people on both sides put their foot down and start talking about false gods.

Outside of that, all bets are completely off. New agers, new-pagans, atheists etc all have radically different conceptions, which cannot be fit together consistantly, and sometimes don't even try to.

So Christians (at least) have learned to be clear. If they say God they mean the being that created the universe, and did the Jesus thing. They do not mean a vague personless force, the legend of a fictional entity whose story is responsible for every possible social evil or a crystally connected higher vibration. "Christian God" (I'd write it "God of the Christians", myself) is at least unambiguous. And that's important these days, when "God" can mean any damned thing.

[doug s.]

Dear Arrogant & Self Absorbed,

Thank the Christian God and his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ- that a man of such...

Could you please explain the necessity/significance of using "Christian" as an adjective in describing God?

TIA,
Occam

thank, occam, for backing my point.  only someone arrogant would claim that jews, christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus', -insert-fave-religious-theory-here-, would have a handle on what god is all about.  

in the particular case that sp-pres refers to, while i certainly don't cotton to his theories about religion, i *do* believe that, if sp-pres is correct about it, he's mistaken about who sent us our present leaders - certainly the work of satan...  

doug s.

[ScottMayo]

thank, occam, for backing my point.  only someone arrogant would claim that jews, christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus', -insert-fave-religious-theory-here-, would have a handle on what god is all about.

First, Christians don't (at least shouldn't) make this claim. At least, I can point to a handful of verses in Christian and Jewish scripture that state that people should not make this sweeping claim. I don't know the Koran well enough to be sure, but I bet knowledgable Moslems don't make this claim either. As for a Buddhist making any definitive claim about God at all... er, do you know many Buddhists?

Second, as arrogant as making any claim about God might be, it pales in comparison to stating that anyone making any such claim must be wrong/arrogant/hidebound, just because *you* don't know God well enough to make any. The crux of your demand (that God must be so entirely unknowable that no one can make any claims), is that *you* say he is unknowable, and you don't say why. Do you understand that that is an opinion, and that opinion without reason is not very interesting or meaningful to others?

in the particular case that sp-pres refers to, while i certainly don't cotton to his theories about religion, i *do* believe that, if sp-pres is correct about it, he's mistaken about who sent us our present leaders - certainly the work of satan...  

Third, flags have already been raised about political points here, so let's all agree to avoid them. Plenty of Christians have had reservations (to put it gently) about the current administration, and plenty of atheists wanted to drop bigger bombs on Iraq and so on. Best to just leave it alone.

[doug s.]

doug s. wrote:
thank, occam, for backing my point. only someone arrogant would claim that jews, christians, muslims, buddhists, hindus', -insert-fave-religious-theory-here-, would have a handle on what god is all about.


First, Christians don't (at least shouldn't) make this claim. At least, I can point to a handful of verses in Christian and Jewish scripture that state that people should not make this sweeping claim. I don't know the Koran well enough to be sure, but I bet knowledgable Moslems don't make this claim either. As for a Buddhist making any definitive claim about God at all... er, do you know many Buddhists?

funny, it seems that one of the people you support the *most* - the originator of this thread - is in fact making just this very claim.  no need to discuss what other claims other religions make.  tho, imo, the buddhists *do* come closest to my own feelings about god - that it is basically unknowable.  while i do not know any buddhists, i have done some reading about it...

Second, as arrogant as making any claim about God might be, it pales in comparison to stating that anyone making any such claim must be wrong/arrogant/hidebound, just because *you* don't know God well enough to make any. The crux of your demand (that God must be so entirely unknowable that no one can make any claims), is that *you* say he is unknowable, and you don't say why. Do you understand that that is an opinion, and that opinion without reason is not very interesting or meaningful to others?

i guess we yust have to agree to disagree.  when you talk about a subject like religion & the nature of god, that can not be even remotely proven, let alone be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and there are many competing views about which one is in fact the right one, when in fact the real one could be completely different, then choosing one over the others is what is arrogant, imo.  of course it's my opinion - have i ever stated otherwise?  the fact of the matter is that the old testament, the new testament, and writings of other religions, are so obviously the the writings of humans, with all their tell-tale signs of human behavioural traits, that to attribute any of them to a supreme being is pure folly - imo.  you say i have no reason for my beliefs?!?  

doug s. wrote:

in the particular case that sp-pres refers to, while i certainly don't cotton to his theories about religion, i *do* believe that, if sp-pres is correct about it, he's mistaken about who sent us our present leaders - certainly the work of satan... icon_eek.gif


Third, flags have already been raised about political points here, so let's all agree to avoid them. Plenty of Christians have had reservations (to put it gently) about the current administration, and plenty of atheists wanted to drop bigger bombs on Iraq and so on. Best to just leave it alone.

yes - there certainly is a supreme being on audiocircles - i have been threatened with banishment from this site if i post anything political.     suffice it to say that i am a strong believer in separation of church & state, & let's leave it at that.

doug s.

[Aether Audio]

Everybody,


I know, I said that I was “out’a here,” but I need to clear something up.  There’s been some confusion over my “meaning” regarding the following:

Thank the Christian God and his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ- that a man of such moral strength, courage and resolve as George W. Bush won the election! …etc.

It appears that I not only failed at that time to make my point to doug s., but apparently a few others have stumbled over this statement.  To clarify, the comment was based on the following post by doug s:

attacking iraq *was* wrong – anyone who was not greedy or stupid knew it long before we attacked. america *is* immoral. i am embarrased, not proud to be american. an intellectual cretin, masquarading under the guise or religious morals, tries (and succeeds) to con this country into believing that only another holy war against the muslim infidels will make this god-fearing christian nation safe again. when he doesn’t give a rat’s a** about morals, only is concerned about keeping his military-industrial-complex & oil buddies fat & happy. no other argument about iraq makes any sense

As I’ve already stated in the “Wake Up Call” post, I felt this comment was clearly inflammatory, challenging, in poor taste and ultimately, unacceptable in this thread.  I realize my methods are not always “optimal” when presented with such, but alas, I am only a man and fallible as anybody.  Although I make no excuses, as I feel I am called to rise above such temptations. Nevertheless, for all my efforts, I slip from time-to-time.

Seeing that, although I try to live by what I view to be a higher moral standard of behavior, my nature is often strongly opposed to this effort.  In response to head-on challenges, rather than pausing to reflect and retain composure, my nature is to “throw it back in their face.”  I’m not typically the type to back down from a fight when I feel the cause is just.

So…when doug s. made that statement, my response was to say something that was as diametrically opposed to his position as I could think of.  The intent was: “So, you want to start throwing rocks?  Well, let me “bang your head a little with this boulder.”  I had figured that it would demonstrate the futility of “going there,” and consequently, he would just “back off.”  You know – shock effect. Sort of like one of my favorite talk show hosts uses – good ‘ol “Rush-bo.”  Say something clearly controversial (and potentially absurd to others) to point out the absurdity and extremism on their part

No offense but…well, it appeared then to have gone “right over his head,” and seems to continue to be doing so with others.  My fault:  I expect too much from others.  It happens pretty frequently here at home as well.  Obviously I’m the one with the problem, not everybody else.

So, I apologize.  Not for my beliefs (and THAT IS what I believe), but for how I presented them in a challenging and less-than-diplomatic way.  As far as clarifying the statement itself, Scott Mayo pretty much summed it up so there’s no need for me to elaborate further.  Just thought you all needed to know.  Sorry.  

-Bob

[doug s.]

i think there's a difference about something that's "going over everyone's head" & something that is ridiculous, so it's not given creedence by many.  

ymmv,

doug s.

[Aragon]

I think the thread has now run it's course...

Therefore it will be locked unless someone can convince me otherwise.