It’s okay for you to ask me dozens of questions (of which I have answered all if you scroll back) yet I can not ask you one? Okay, whatever you want to ask me now for a third and fourth time, I will answer again.
Exactly. I am well aware they are questions. Generally statements end in a . And questions in a ?. I have asked one question to quite possibly your 50 by now.
Please quote when I have EVER on this forum become defensive with you. I am normally quite patient and I respond to ALL of your posts.
Anyone can go back and see where I have established a criteria, and then you insist that I never stated a criteria. I actually challenged you to quote exactly where I had ever changed the criteria and of course you were not able to do this.
Yes, no change there.
And that is different how?
Right. And how is that different? I am asking that it defy medical convention and you yourself admitted that was a logical requirement to place upon it. How has that changed?
Okay since that has not changed at all.
A. Longer then existing medical record. You claim you found a man in Russia that went three days but as of yet, we can not establish that he was actually dead.
B. Not in cold storage. This man was in cold storage for three days.
C. Establish whether or not a human or an unknown source was indeed raising the person or animal from the dead. My concern is that if this were to actually occur (sans human involvement) then EVERY religious sect in the known world would attempt to take credit for it and claim it was their god at work.
None of that has changed back from my very first post.
Right. I think if most Christians today could do a little editing to the modern day bible, they would choose to remove most of the OT because it is embarrassing and constantly causes them to explain and re-explain their faith. I.e. how do you justify referring to your god as “loving” when he is ordering the stoning death of young women etc etc. But they are legitimate questions.
That wasn’t me; it was prezelman whatever his name was. I was the one stating that Catholics are only a different denomination of Christianity and he was claiming that they were not. I think you confused our positions on the topic?
Anyway Lilly were you going to answer my question? In light of this man's alleged three days in cold storage (even though we dont know if he was actually dead) don’t you wonder why there are still atheists/agnostics even in existence? How could this be with so much gosh darn irrefutable evidence as you claim eh?
It depends I have used both but normally I am using the OT. For instance, the video link being utilized on this thread is primarily passages from the OT though a few from the NT as well if I recall.
Well I will agree with you on the Paul thing at least. The rest is blah and I guess you would need to ask yourself why you would be offended by people posting passages from the bible?
Thought I would add this as the icing on the cake. Its very interesting.
SKEPTIC: By looking at human behavior as objectively as I can, from an anthropological perspective, all paths lead me to support the hypothesis that God is the combination of projection and transference of a given culture's (and individual's) ideals and ideal relationships onto an unseen (yet psychically, very real) entity. Borrowing from analytic psychology, what I believe happens is the creation (or greater potentiation) of a complex, charged emotional contents with attendant thoughts and images, continually reinforced through normal operant techniques through institutions such as churches and their various rituals.
My latest thinking on the topic of God is that it's hard to look at the DNA sequence for a particular trait (speaking as a software engineer), and not say, "You know, that looks a lot like machine code! And that, in turn, presupposes a programmer, a Creator!" At the same time, this is far removed from the idea of a personal, loving, Christian God who cares about us individually and will somehow rescue us from extermination at death.
Don't get me wrong: I very much hope that there is a loving God, but in light of what I know of neuroscience, it seems unlikely. It seems much more likely that we are the miraculous products of natural selection. I also believe that religion is very much man-made, and that if God does exist, he appears to be utterly and absolutely silent, having nothing to do with humankind, other than in man's dreams, hopes, and fantasies (though these are products of man's minds). I don't say any of this to be disrespectful, and I'm painfully aware of how emotional an issue religion is, but I say it in the spirit of honest exploration.
KEVIN WILLIAMS: NDE reports support much, if not all, of what you are saying. Man did create religion and the idea of god(s). And the idea of a Master DNA programmer God does seem much more likely and impersonal compared to the Christian idea of God.
The only realistic answer to the question, "What is God?", is that God is only a term that represents whatever you want it to mean. Many Christians believe God is a divine Father. Hindus believe God (Brahman) to be life manifesting itself everywhere with no exceptions. Cave men may have believed God to be the sun. To tribal cults, God may be a stone statue. Certainly, people throughout history believed things that seem utterly ridiculous to our enlightened minds. As stated previously, the idea of God has so many different meanings to different people that it is really useless to talk about the idea of a God unless a consensus is reached on it's definition.
NDErs have much to say about their experience with God. Many times I have read NDE reports where experiencers say that God is a reality that words alone cannot adequately describe. Most of the time, we hear descriptive words such as love, life, light, all, source, force, one, mind, consciousness, vibration, spirit, being, etc. But, according to many experiencers, even these descriptions are woefully inadequate. One experiencer described God as "the light that loves." Another experiencer, Chuck Griswold, stated in the NDE documentary entitled Shadows, "Life is love is God. If you add anymore to this definition then you are not making it any better."
When experiencers say that life itself is God, they are stating that everything is God, or that everything is a part of God, or that all is God. With this definition, we may as well state that reality itself is God. For this reason, we should probably just assign the term God to the toy box and simply say that there is no God. There is only ultimate reality. This is what people worship as God.
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." - Albert Einstein
I have updated the article on clinical death. Clinical means "based on direct observation of the patient" or "very objective and devoid of emotion; analytical". And death is defined, in the US at least, by the UDDA: "irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem". Of course clinicians are only human, so clinical mistakes are made. But by definition (and US state laws), you don't survive clinical death unless a mistake was made in the clinical determination of death. The general public, press, and even some clinicians, just incorrectly refer to a temporary cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions as "clinical death"
Skeptic06 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Skeptic06
Hrmmm. This might be part of the problem right here.
When did I say 2 days? I said LONGER than any recorded medical account. Besides, we do not know if this man was dead. He may have been thought to be dead. He was also put into cold storage and we already discussed that. Yes I would be MUCH more impressed with a person who had been at room temperature for a period of time LONGER than ANYTHING on record previously. Please read what I say.
How much more specific can that be? Why don’t you give me a criteria that you consider specific (not a baby revived after 8 minutes) and I will tell you if that sounds reasonable to me? Will that satisfy you?
I challenge you to quote even once when I have ever changed a criteria from one thing to another. Go ahead and quote it. I will await that on your next post. And what of my question posed to you? Were you going to answer that?
This is the third time I have done this. A person who has been dead (we are certain they are dead) for a period of time LONGER than anything previously recorded. I would also like them NOT to be in cold storage or in the throes of hypothermia AT ALL. I think I have stated this in about three posts now.
We do not know if he was dead. That’s what I am trying to find out right now.
"In 1937, while researching folklore in Haiti, Zora Neale Hurston encountered the case of a woman that appeared in a village, and a family claimed she was Felicia Felix-Mentor, a relative who had died and been buried in 1907 at the age of 29. Hurston pursued rumors that the affected persons were given powerful drugs, but she was unable to locate individuals willing to offer much information. She wrote:
“ What is more, if science ever gets to the bottom of Voodoo in Haiti and Africa, it will be found that some important medical secrets, still unknown to medical science, give it its power, rather than gestures of ceremony."
But we do not know that this happened with this man. He might not have been dead and then he was placed in cold storage.
If he wasn’t dead?
It sounds like a story that Christians would latch onto. How come it just happens to be a Christian god he speaks of?
Except that if he was not dead?
Aren’t you reading your OWN beliefs in god into his experience?
But why do you assume I don’t believe in god? Simply because I do not accept the notion of the God of Abraham? Isn’t that somewhat presumptuous on your part? What makes you think that if this man's experience was real that he would automatically experience your same perception of god? Isn’t that convenient?
Thank you. Im looking it up right now to read both positions, his and the skeptics. Right now the skeptics are claiming that there was no way to know if he was dead.
Thanks I have actually read that account before though. What I wanted to see was that older woman you were talking about and if her circumstances were new in some respect.
Also, did you catch my latest question to you? I asked why if as you seem to feel there is actual evidence that these resuscitations are supernatural in nature and absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt prove the existence of some sort of god, do we still have Atheists and Agnostics roaming the planet? If there was no question about this (which you implied) wouldn’t they all immediately convert to some religion?
"The orthodox doctrine is logically impossible. As Huston Smith, scholar of comparative religion, points out, it would not have been logically impossible if the creed said that Jesus was somewhat divine and somewhat human. But this is expressly what the creed denies. For orthodox Christians, Jesus cannot possess only some human qualities; he must possess all. He must be fully human. At the same time, he cannot possess only some divine qualities; he must have all. He must be fully divine. This is impossible because to be fully divine means one has to be free of human limitations. If he has only one human limitation then he is not God. But according to creed he has every human limitation. How, then, can he be God? Huston Smith calls this a blatant contradiction. In his book The World’s Religions, he writes:
We may begin with the doctrine of the Incarnation, which took several centuries to fix into place. Holding as it does that in Christ God assumed a human body, it affirms that Christ was God-Man; simultaneously both fully God and fully man. To say that such a contention is paradoxical seems a charitable way to put the matter — it looks more like a blatant contradiction. If the doctrine held that Christ was half human and half divine, or that he was divine in certain respects, while being human in others, our minds would not balk. (The World’s Religions, p. 340).
If it was said that Jesus was partly human and partly divine that would not be logically impossible but only scripturally impossible. The Bible nowhere teaches that Jesus was divine in any way. Furthermore, if he was only partly divine then he was not the One True God of the Old and New Testaments. God is All-Powerful, not somewhat all-powerful; God is All-Knowing, not somewhat all-knowing.
That "stoop to their level" comment was rude. I dont think that was called for at tall.
Well just pointing out that you seem to be implying that you "resolved" the contradiction. Tee hee. Generally in a debate setting, it does go back and forth until someone forfeits. Right now the next post would be due from you.
A police officer that gives his/her life in the line of duty to protect an innocent civilian is every bit as important as the sacrifice of Jesus. That also really occurs.
In response to: I am glad you appreciated my explanation.
Yes I’m assuming it came from an apologetic website.
In response to: I understand your not wanting to except it.
It’s not a matter of "not accepting it." You didn’t explain the contradictions. Did you read my post? Modern Christian scholars reject this idea not because it is difficult to understand but because it cannot be meaningfully expressed. The doctrine cannot be stated in any way that is free from contradictions. It is impossible for Jesus to have been perfect man and perfect God at the same time, for this would mean that he was finite and infinite at the same time, that he was fallible and infallible at the same time. This cannot be.
In response to: But I have established a viable alternative to just taking these passages to be contrary with each other.
They are because the only passage that you supplied that was actually from the bible (and not simply just conjecture) on the part of the apologetics was open to interpretation as noted.
In response to: I am not sure what modern "Christian" scholars you are alluding to,
Theologians of the current day. Only evangelical Christians tend to still buy into the notion of "biblical inerrancy."
In response to: but I never said Jesus was infinite when He was in human form.
What the creed denies is also quite significant. The creed was formulated in response to the claims of various early Christian groups, and so includes clauses that deny the beliefs of those groups. In response to the Arians who believed that Jesus was not God, the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) decreed that he was fully God.
In response to: Just as the passage I provided shows, He was made low so He could experience humanity, suffer, and die.
That passage is open to interpretation. Did Jesus die by the grace of god or apart from god? “Although almost all the surviving manuscripts state that Jesus died for all people ‘by the grace of God’ (CHARITI THEOU) a couple of others state, instead, that he died ‘apart from God’ (CHORIS THEOU). Heb 2:9 appears originally to have said that Jesus died ‘apart from God’, forsaken, much as he is portrayed in the Passion narrative of Mark’s Gospel…..There is also the question of why these words came to be changed…. One explanation is that the scribes who were not altogether satisfied with what the New Testament books said modified their words to make them more clearly support orthodox Christianity and more vigorously oppose heretics, women, Jews, and pagans.”
In response to: "So Jesus said to them, 'Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'" Matthew 19:28
19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
This is the very next passage. Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. Hrmmm.
In response to: "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made." John 1:3
But how could Jesus be with God in the beginning as this verse says, if, as the Watchtower teaches, Jesus was created by God? And how could Jesus be "a god" and yet be with God during the creation, if God was speaking truthfully?
krimsa Forum Posts (1,345)
RE: Prove to me....
It’s okay for you to ask me dozens of questions (of which I have answered all if you scroll back) yet I can not ask you one? Okay, whatever you want to ask me now for a third and fourth time, I will answer again.Exactly. I am well aware they are questions. Generally statements end in a . And questions in a ?. I have asked one question to quite possibly your 50 by now.
Please quote when I have EVER on this forum become defensive with you. I am normally quite patient and I respond to ALL of your posts.
Anyone can go back and see where I have established a criteria, and then you insist that I never stated a criteria. I actually challenged you to quote exactly where I had ever changed the criteria and of course you were not able to do this.
Yes, no change there.
And that is different how?
Right. And how is that different? I am asking that it defy medical convention and you yourself admitted that was a logical requirement to place upon it. How has that changed?
Okay since that has not changed at all.
A. Longer then existing medical record. You claim you found a man in Russia that went three days but as of yet, we can not establish that he was actually dead.
B. Not in cold storage. This man was in cold storage for three days.
C. Establish whether or not a human or an unknown source was indeed raising the person or animal from the dead. My concern is that if this were to actually occur (sans human involvement) then EVERY religious sect in the known world would attempt to take credit for it and claim it was their god at work.
None of that has changed back from my very first post.