Modern Faiths

[jwinslow]

The point is he's a young boy who probably hasn't even hit puberty. Why is it hard to believe he's still maturing mentally in terms of wisdom?

Sure Jesus could have plopped down on earth as a 30 year old sage, but that would have made him much more alien and lessened the connection he'd have to other humans, including going through a similar journey & set of struggles that they did in life.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

The point is he's a young boy who probably hasn't even hit puberty. Why is it hard to believe he's still maturing mentally in terms of wisdom?

Sure Jesus could have plopped down on earth as a 30 year old sage, but that would have made him much more alien and lessened the connection he'd have to other humans, including going through a similar journey & set of struggles that they did in life.

I understand, again, that humans age from young boys to men (in this instance). Perfectly understandable. If Jesus is just a man.

But... G-d is ALL KNOWING.... what can he possibly learn? If Jesus learned anything, he is not G-d. If he didn't know he knew everything already, he can't be G-d. If he was G-d, but had to learn things he didn't know, then G-d is not all knowing.

Or...

Luke can't be trusted.

 

[jwinslow]

Do you believe the infant should have been capable of fielding a debate on free will and predestination as soon as he learned to speak? Or was there a maturation of mind & wisdom that had to take place first over years before he could do so?

Or...

You can try and declare your determined options as the only possibilities, but that doesn't make it true.

But... G-d is ALL KNOWING.... what can he possibly learn? If Jesus learned anything, he is not G-d. If he didn't know he knew everything already, he can't be G-d. If he was G-d, but had to learn things he didn't know, then G-d is not all knowing.

And if all powerful G-d or his son can be killed by a sword, then he's not G-d.

Or...

This is G-d in human form.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Do you believe the infant should have been capable of fielding a debate on free will and predestination as soon as he learned to speak? Or was there a maturation of mind & wisdom that had to take place first over years before he could do so?

If he was human, sure.... But... Malachi says G-d does not change... I don't know what else to tell you. Not my rules, Jwin.. Either Luke or Malachi is mistaken. Or, G-d isn't who we think He is... or Jesus wasn't.

You can try and declare your determined options as the only possibilities, but that doesn't make it true.

Still believe the so called "Trilemma" (Liar, Lord, Lunatic) then?

And if all powerful G-d or his son can be killed by a sword, then he's not G-d.

You said it

Or...

This is G-d in human form.

A) Where's your offer of proof for this statement?
B) Even forgiving that, I'm perfectly willing to concede that Human death is not spiritual death, so I don't see the foul.

Thus, again....

Did Jesus learn anything? If he did, how can you say G-d is all knowing, since you've just established G-d didn't always know everything? If he did not learn anything (ie he always knew everything), why is Luke saying he did learn?

 

[jwinslow]

If he was human, sure.... But... Malachi says G-d does not change... I don't know what else to tell you. Not my rules, Jwin.. Either Luke or Malachi is mistaken. Or, G-d isn't who we think He is... or Jesus wasn't.

So is that a yes?

Jesus should have been spouting complex philosophical teachings as toddler, or maybe 3-4 years afterwards (when he had an actual vocabulary)?

That doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

 

[jwinslow]

getting back to our other discussion...

please note the final paragraph is my main point. There has to be something your children can do against you that would require 'shaping up' before everything would be fine and welcome at home.

I don't understand. I haven't justified or chastised any otherwise like set of consequences.

Your posts are dripping with chastisement over the inhumanity of eternal consequences.

I understand preferring one approach, which parents do all the time in a variety of ways. I don't believe there is room to morally justify one set of consequences without allowing room for another set.

Now, on this it seems to me you have a consistency problem. G-d, as you understand him (and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong), is perfectly willing to damn eternally his children for misdeeds (and setting aside concepts of "fair" judgment or not) - even while you also believe this G-d has unconditional love.

He lets them choose whether to have a relationship with him or not. You feel it's wrong to not guarantee that relationship even if they do not want it, I disagree.

I think this warrants more analysis than Socratic remarks, Jwins. How can G-d be an unconditional lover when you also believe their are conditions where G-d will punish you eternally?

Please be aware - in phrasing your answer - I'm not asking for justification of the punishment in and of itself. Instead, I am asking you to fashion an answer to the limited question of consistency between A) loving unconditionally while also B) punishing eternally.

As a parent, I feel qualified to say what I have said - that because I love unconditionally - there is NO set of actions which would make me remove my children from my house forever. Your version of G-d seems perfectly willing to do so despite this "love" In short, is your G-d an unconditional lover of his children or is he not? I don't believe you can have it both ways.

Ignoring the debate over capital punishment, let's just determine that such is the consequence for murder.

I would never stop loving my son if he committed such an act, but that love is separate from the consequences of his act. The consequences would be eternal and they would break my heart, as his choice would take him away from me. That wouldn't change the love I had for him.

Likewise, if another son simply wanted nothing to do with me, attacked my house and family, stole and committed other crimes against me, eventually I would probably let him have his wish to be on his own. I would always love him, even if his actions broke my heart. I'd also welcome him back into my home someday if he repented.

I agree. You and I differ on whether Jesus must be involved in the situation. I do not require his presence to atone for my sins, while you believe you do.

I agree, I'm simply trying to point out that I believe many of these examples are overlooking the opportunity for repentance... and the choice involved here.

True enough. Hypothetically, however, even if my children rejected me altogether, they would still always be welcome in my house.

And those who reject Christ are always welcome to return to him. Christ doesn't return them to him against their will however.

I'm not sure this makes me the 'bigger person' in such a situation, but plain fact is this - my ego is not so large that I would forever lose my children based on their rejection of me. In other words, they'd always be welcomed back with open arms. Because I love them that much. As above, it seems your concept of G-d holds grudges. Long (eternal), painful (Hell) grudges...

Is there anything they can do "wrong" which would require repentance and change in behavior before they would be welcomed home?

I'm not asking if there is anything they can do to eternally end their relationship with you.

I'm asking whether there is anything bad enough that would hinder their welcome until that behavior changed/

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

So is that a yes?

Jesus should have been spouting complex philosophical teachings as toddler, or maybe 3-4 years afterwards (when he had an actual vocabulary)?

That doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

Are we playing dodge ball?

I'm not interested in Jesus talking beyond his years at the age of 3 or 4. I'm asking you if he was G-d.

If he was, who between Malachi and Luke was incorrect concerning His nature?

 

[jwinslow]

Are we playing dodge ball?

It certainly seems like it. You still have yet to say yes. Is it that hard?

I'm not interested in Jesus talking beyond his years at the age of 3 or 4.

But you are... you're arguing that unless Jesus' mental make-up as a human child was as wise and developed as a supernatural G-d, then he's not G-d. I think that's a very poor argument.

I'm asking you if he was G-d.

You know the answer to that is yes.

What he isn't is a being without limitations when in human form.

If he was, who between Malachi and Luke was incorrect concerning His nature?

reply coming in another post... as this is a separate discussion

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

getting back to our other discussion...

please note the final paragraph is my main point. There has to be something your children can do against you that would require 'shaping up' before everything would be fine and welcome at home.
Your posts are dripping with chastisement over the inhumanity of eternal consequences.

Methinks you're assuming what my posts are dripping with because of other posts I've made in years gone past. I'll re-read my posts here, but I took some care to not come across as rude or contemptuous. I wont tell you how to behave, but I'm not sure I've been given the same courtesy. But, that's neither here nor there, as I can handle your remarks without including too much emotion as it is now.

I understand preferring one approach, which parents do all the time in a variety of ways. I don't believe there is room to morally justify one set of consequences without allowing room for another set.

Well, keeping my house open to my children is not an issue of moral justification of their behavior. Does that help?

He lets them choose whether to have a relationship with him or not. You feel it's wrong to not guarantee that relationship even if they do not want it, I disagree.

I don't believe it's "wrong" I believe it is inconsistent with unconditional love. As such, I believe a religion that includes a concept of eternal damnation to be inconsistent with the G-d I believe exists.

Ignoring the debate over capital punishment, let's just determine that such is the consequence for murder.

I would never stop loving my son if he committed such an act, but that love is separate from the consequences of his act. The consequences would be eternal and they would break my heart, as his choice would take him away from me. That wouldn't change the love I had for him.

Likewise, if another son simply wanted nothing to do with me, attacked my house and family, stole and committed other crimes against me, eventually I would probably let him have his wish to be on his own. I would always love him, even if his actions broke my heart. I'd also welcome him back into my home someday if he repented.

Perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned. However, the Christian G-d doesn't appear to behave this way where eternal damnation is concerned. And...if all it takes is repentance.. well... guess there should be a premium on death bed confessions (even just true heartfelt ones) and it doesn't much matter what we do any time else... all we have to do is repent, right? To avoid damnation for eternity?

Frankly, the concept of hell is - in my view - little more than a threat to behave morally. I can behave morally without the specter of punishment hanging over me. Thus, I think hell is ridiculous, the concept only having tangential relationship to whatever might be G-d's will.

And those who reject Christ are always welcome to return to him. Christ doesn't return them to him against their will however.

So, eternal damnation isn't eternal?

Is there anything they can do "wrong" which would require repentance and change in behavior before they would be welcomed home?

I'm not asking if there is anything they can do to eternally end their relationship with you.

I'm asking whether there is anything bad enough that would hinder their welcome until that behavior changed/

And I have answered that no less than 4 times now. My children will always have a home in my house. I do not know if I can be more clear than I have been on this point.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

It certainly seems like it. You still have yet to say yes.

I have answered that question yes several times, though I was making you do a little work by understanding that when I said that sounds fine for a human, you'd understand the answer.

Is it that hard?

No.

But you are... you're arguing that unless Jesus' mental make-up as a human child was as wise and developed as a supernatural G-d, then he's not G-d. I think that's a very poor argument.

Well, it seems ridiculous to believe an all knowing G-d was at some point, not all knowing. Malachi says G-d is unchanging. Luke says there was a change. One of them is incorrect. You can decide which.

You know the answer to that is yes.

I know the answer is "no"

What he isn't is a being without limitations when in human form.

Then G-d changed and Malachi must be mistaken. Edit: In the alternative, you're saying G-d has not always been All Powerful, since he was with limit for some 33 years.

He does seem good at the occasional parlor trick, though... walk on water? Sure... Know that you know everything, being that you're G-d and all? Crazy talk.

 

[Bleed S & G]

Lets step away from arguing the semantics of learning..

This question is much harder one to answer..

If Jesus was born through a virgin, and the blood of King David was on Joesph's side.. how is Jesus a direct descendant of King David?

 

[muffler dragon]

jwinslow,

Question: are you aware that the Christian concept of eternal damnation/hell is foreign to the Jewish Bible and Judaism?

 

[jwinslow]

Well, it seems ridiculous to believe an all knowing G-d was at some point, not all knowing. Malachi says G-d is unchanging. Luke says there was a change. One of them is incorrect. You can decide which.

Malachi was talking about God's nature, who he was. Or are you also arguing that Jesus' growth in height also refutes Malachi?

In the very next sentence, G-d tells his people to return to him and he will return to them. That is change in the present, but does not change who G-d is.

To me there is a difference in who Christ is and what his body is, which as a young child was lacking in physical maturity and mental understanding/wisdom. I understand why you feel this is a disconnect, but do not agree.

Then G-d changed and Malachi must be mistaken. Edit: In the alternative, you're saying G-d has not always been All Powerful, since he was with limit for some 33 years.

Who was Jesus praying to? Who turned away from him on the cross as he was sacrificed?

 

[jwinslow]

Methinks you're assuming what my posts are dripping with because of other posts I've made in years gone past. I'll re-read my posts here, but I took some care to not come across as rude or contemptuous. I wont tell you how to behave, but I'm not sure I've been given the same courtesy. But, that's neither here nor there, as I can handle your remarks without including too much emotion as it is now.

Probably true, and if I'm being snarky, I apologize. :)

I want to skip over most of the side discussions and get to the meat, but wanted to respond to this quote

And...if all it takes is repentance.. well... guess there should be a premium on death bed confessions (even just true heartfelt ones) and it doesn't much matter what we do any time else... all we have to do is repent, right? To avoid damnation for eternity?

I'm picking up a lot of cynicism here, but no reason why a sincere repentance would not be accepted.Same as I would accept my child's repentance for an ancient misdeed against me, even if he waited 50 years.

Frankly, the concept of hell is - in my view - little more than a threat to behave morally. I can behave morally without the specter of punishment hanging over me. Thus, I think hell is ridiculous, the concept only having tangential relationship to whatever might be G-d's will.

What of the concept of heaven?

And I have answered that no less than 4 times now. My children will always have a home in my house. I do not know if I can be more clear than I have been on this point.

You also said you wouldn't act like everything is fine. To me that suggests that the relationship is not unconditional, perhaps that would be a better approach than "love" (which is unconditional with you) or "welcome".

My child can always return home, but our relationship does not continue on without a beat unconditionally, and that could impact whether he's ready to return. There are times he must make amends (as well as me) to repair and repent from what was done.

I will have a everlasting (in Earth terms) relationship with my kids.
I will have unconditional love for my kids.
I will not have an unconditional relationship with them.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Malachi was talking about God's nature, who he was. Or are you also arguing that Jesus' growth in height also refutes Malachi?

In the very next sentence, G-d tells his people to return to him and he will return to them. That is change in the present, but does not change who G-d is.

To me there is a difference in who Christ is and what his body is, which as a young child was lacking in physical maturity and mental understanding/wisdom. I understand why you feel this is a disconnect, but do not agree.

I have already stated I have purposely let the physical attributes changing out of the discussion.

This concerns the simple remark that if Jesus was indeed G-d, then Luke must be mistaken. G-d cannot not know everything at any point in time, or he ceases to be All Knowing. The easiest "out" for you is to say "OK, Luke messed up" But, truth is, I am playing dirty because I know you wont/cant say that.

Instead, you've created a situation where you've suggested that G-d placed limits on himself when he became human and have therefore suggested that G-d has not always been all powerful. I do not think you believe that, but it is what you ended up saying.

That's fine, if you believe it. But, you can't call G-d eternally all powerful. For 33 years, according to you, he was limited quite severely.

Who was Jesus praying to? Who turned away from him on the cross as he was sacrificed?

Jesus was a man, so he was praying to G-d, of course. I have no idea who turned away from him when he was on the cross. I doubt it was G-d though.

As I think about it, if you believe Jesus was G-d, then who was he praying to? Himself? If he was praying to himself, why didn't He just decide "grace" in the first place? I mean, why bother praying if you're setting out to do what you've been sent to accomplish anyway?

It doesn't make any sense to me.

I'll try to get to your other post later as I have to run off to a meeting for now..... BBL