"Credo in unum Deum, sanctificatur nomen Tuam, adveniat regnum Tuam.........................."
I didn't respond to Mohaughn completely..................
I understood (I think) what you were saying, but would phrase it very differently. I think that if you believe in the existence of Jesus, then the questions should be:
1. Was he the Son of God?
2. Was he a prophet of God?
3. Was he a fake?
Well, let's look at it?
1. The Christians believe in #1 and #2.
2. The Christians, Moslems and the majority of Jews believe in #2
3. Others would say "yes" to #3 (remember I have excluded those who don't believe that he even existed)
I realise that there are those who would take an agnostic stance as to the existence of Jesus, but I don't see any point in complicating things?
Incidentally, believing in a God or Gods is a far different thing from Christianity Creationism is not the sole prerogative of Christians, Moslems and Jews either..............as a concept it predates all those religions.
Have a happy Easter folks
Yeah, that is better phrasing. I'd have another choice of just saying that Jesus was very enlightened or had a stronger understanding of faith. I think the term prophet may even be a bit strong. But in light of what other religions consider as their prophets I'll go with that term, I guess. In a lot of ways I think people should also consider other great thinkers as prophets as well. To me, I think you can look at the teachings of Christ, I'm using that as a surname not in the Christian sense, in a more faith based manner. Take the churches or labels out of the question entirely. Don't think of him as a christian or a jew, but as a teacher of faith and humanity. Same as the Buddha or Mohammed or any other great thinker.
I'm sure these were all very simple and humble people that didn't intend for these stories of miracles and wonderous deeds to become so widely told. In a lot of cases people get so hung up on the wonderful story that they overlook the underlying message.
I'm still not sure how people can put faith into the trinity though. That one is truly a logical baffle. I think a simple explanation is that it is a very complicated way of solving the problem of needing to worship a man, but still say that you are monotheistic and that you only worship god. Who was that man, but not really, because he is also the spirit.
If anything, the world around us shows us that God is usually present in the simple details. This simple logical building blocks of the world around us that allows for such wonderful and complicated life. That is truly at the heart of the argument for a logical creator. Why would the same creator have this really complicated and confusing religion as his ultimate plan?
Not really trying to start an argument or offend anyone. Just presenting my piece of it. I think you can say that you believe in the teachings of Living Christ but are not Christian. Believing in the Living Christ does not require a literal belief in the Christian bible written after his death. Saying you are the son of god doesn't have to mean you are a diety. It could just mean that you think all of humanity is the kin of god. Saying you are Christian requires faith in the Bible as being divine more than anything else. Not really a belief in Christ. Just a matter of how you choose to interrupt it.
Last edited by mohaughn; April 6th, 2007 at 06:15 PM.
You are absolutely correct, I used the expression "prophet" in the broader context of a "teacher", "holy man", "guru", "cognoscenti"...........whatever word(s) you like. I do not mean a "fortune teller" or "diviner of the future"
For those who are interested, this is how I explain the Trinity:
1. Imagine that you are a father of a young family.
2. You have a number of duties to your offspring?
[A] As a lawgiver........keep them in order, make the house rules?
[B] As a companion and playmate [ take them to the ball match etc.?]
[C] As an educator.......you teach them social and moral values, knowledge, skills and all sorts?
Well, that is the Trinity Actually I think that Hidus have a similar concept, but the three principals are actually discrete individuals, rather than personalities?
just a few thoughts
Last edited by nihil; April 6th, 2007 at 07:52 PM.
Apologies if this has already been picked up on (got to about page 17 then just couldn't face reading any more).
Originally Posted by Moira
And I don't think "just ok" sums up earth either. It's clear we've been given the ability to appreciate the beauty of the earth, which is not a trait needed for survival and plays no part in evolution.
You say that appreciating the beauty of the earth is not a trait for survival - could it not be a way of ensuring that everyone does not commit suicide? I doubt that's something you can prove either way, like most of the arguments in this thread.
If anything, the world around us shows us that God is usually present in the simple details. This simple logical building blocks of the world around us that allows for such wonderful and complicated life. That is truly at the heart of the argument for a logical creator. Why would the same creator have this really complicated and confusing religion as his ultimate plan?
Couldn't have put it better myself! And the natural disinclination to commit suicide is present in all species and is indeed an evolutionary trait to ensure survival of the species. It isn't necessary to gaze at the wonder of creation to prevent the urge to kill oneself. That's totally separate.
If anything, the world around us shows us that God is usually present in the simple details. This simple logical building blocks of the world around us that allows for such wonderful and complicated life. That is truly at the heart of the argument for a logical creator. Why would the same creator have this really complicated and confusing religion as his ultimate plan?
I understand your statement is just touching on the basis of Creationism, but I couldn't agree with this "logic" less. This statement is akin to personification. You're giving an inanimate and/or non-sentient thing an inherent purpose and means.
A rock is simply a fragment of a larger piece of sediment/mineral.
A tree is an ends unto itself. It is totally unaware of humanity or just about anything around it not directly necessary for its survival. The plant is not even aware of the boot stamping it into the ground.
Animals & Plants are a ends unto themselves. We treat them as a means to our ends, but they will do well and exist without our interventions or participation. Aside from some isolated incidents of domesticated pets (even this cannot truely be proven), plants and animals do NOTHING for the benefit of humanity intentionally. They exist TO exist unto themselves as a species, not for our benefit. The fact that we find them useful is wholely irrelevant.
\"Greatness only comes at great risk.\" ~ Personal/Generic
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by nihil
Creationism is not the sole prerogative of Christians, Moslems and Jews either..............as a concept it predates all those religions.
