Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Can an Ethiopian ...

Why an Ethiopian?

Originally Posted by boxcar

... change the color of his skin?

Yes, he/she can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color

Originally Posted by boxcar

If you answered rightly, ...

I did!

Originally Posted by boxcar

... the same answer applies to man since man cannot change his nature.

Yes, he can.

Originally Posted by boxcar

This is both a biblical statement ...

Which proves that scripture proves nothing.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... as well an indisputable fact ...

Not!

Originally Posted by boxcar

... relevant to the First Law of Logic, i.e. the Law of Identity.

Non sequitur! You have no idea how logic works or what the Law of Identity means. (Ditto the Law of Non-Contradiction) If you are going to make a claim like that then provide a proof. Don't just spit it out as if God told you.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why an Ethiopian?
Yes, he/she can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color
I did!
Yes, he can.
Which proves that scripture proves nothing.
Not!
Non sequitur! You have no idea how logic works or what the Law of Identity means. (Ditto the Law of Non-Contradiction) If you are going to make a claim like that then provide a proof. Don't just spit it out as if God told you.

And good afternoon, to you, too.

Have a nice day, Actor.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

If you are going to make a claim like that then provide a proof. Don't just spit it out as if God told you.

Hugh? Are yoy suggesting boxcar does not speak regularly with God.

All I can say about the religious threads is religion loses it's value as the study of mind when it is turned into erroneous myths and doctrines about deities and how many there are.

Paraphrasing Hebrew wisdom(actually modern Hebrew lore or yiddish absolute truth

----Deity, Shmeity!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

I usually don't experience what some in my network of contacts mean when they state that, to a degree in low church ecclesial groups, the Incarnation is viewed through a utilitarian lens. That is, "Christ's death served it's purpose and it's over...now we maintain an invisible faith in that once-in-time event"... and scripture essentially becomes a catechism. Without denigrating scripture, the New Covenant isn't a book. It's an action recorded in a book (Lk 22:20).

No amount of verbal discourse by Christ would have laid the groundwork for the contemplative and doctrinal development that resulted in the formally stated creeds regarding the Trinity. If Christ would have told the Apostles in the first inning that he was God, and they believed him, they wouldn't have consulted the scrolls. They would have fallen on their faces in Old Testament reverential fear. He didn't tell them (Messianic secret)--they told him after intimately experiencing the attributes of YHWH in his person ( Mt 16:15-17), and applying that to the Father.

I won a bet when you were mistaken about something Feser cited approvingly, but I forget the details, so I will cancel your debt.

The Blues are marching on to the next round.

I'll consider your reply if made, but some of our issues are merely semantic, and time to move along.

In my opinion, it would benefit you to observe Titus 3:10 (Paul was qualified to state v. 11, but I'm not). Nothing to be gained with adversaries via telephone wires rather than personal experience and friendship--but I know you won't acquiesce.

"Doc"

Wow! Talk about ducking another issue. So, "the creeds" have it all over the inspired, inerrant authoritative Word of God! My goodness! Where would Christ's Church today be without the fallible, religious creeds of men? So...if I'm understanding you correctly, Christ didn't build his church on His Words and by the Holy Spirit, men's creeds did. In fact, the Holy Spirit was a huge waste of time also. After all, there could have been only a handful of first century believers because their OT scriptures were silent on the Trinity, right? If not amount of discourse by Christ would have sufficed, then certainly no amount of inspiration by the Holy Spirit would either!

It seems the infidels are right: Christianity really didn't take off until centuries after Christ's ascension -- after all those man-made creeds were invented. Apostolic gospel preaching from the OT scriptures had to have been worthless because the OT was theologically impoverished when it came to the doctrine of the Trinity and Christology and Soteriology. Paul really spun his wheels preaching the gospel of Christ from the OT scriptures sabbath after sabbath in synagogues across Asia Minor, didn't he? No wonder he had so little success with the Jews. Paul couldn't pull the wool over their eyes and convince them of the deity of Christ, the kingship of Christ, etc, etc. because none of that was in the OT. So...those savvy, wise Jews did the right thing by persecuting Paul and calling him a blasphemer and troublemaker, etc.

So...the bottom line to all this is that we can't believe Christ when he taught that all the OT was about him; and we can't believe any of the NT writers when they talk of the rapid spread of Christianity immediately after Christ's ascension. We can't because Christ isn't in the OT, the Trinity isn't in the OT and the gospel isn't in the OT. For that matter neither was the gospel ever preached in the OT scriptures by any OT saint, despite the NT's teaching to the contrary! Good job, Doc, in greatly devaluating and undercutting the divine authority of all scripture because the OT is so theologically-impoverished, apparently -- having little or nothing to offer in the way of the gospel, in the way of Christology or Trinitarianism.

I can only conclude from all this that you must believe that Deut 6:4 is in fact teaching that God is one person. Moses got that all wrong, right? Which creed was it that can take credit for finally straightening out the old guy numerous centuries after he penned that grievous error?

But back to far more important matter, lest your Blues should feel slighted: Give them my congratulations.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by hcap

Hugh? Are you suggesting boxcar does not speak regularly with God.

I'm sure he does. And boxcar thinks it's a two way conversation.

[Actor]

I missed something here. What's all this about the blues? Is this becoming a music thread?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So...the bottom line to all this is that we can't believe Christ when he taught that all the OT was about him; ...

Liar, lunatic, lord? Another exhibit for lunatic.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

I missed something here. What's all this about the blues? Is this becoming a music thread?

Not unusual for you it seems. The hockey team from St. Louis participating in the play-offs.

[Show Me the Wire]

The truth of Pascha (Easter) shatters the world of polite conformity, because one of the first lessons of the Risen Christ is that doubt is healthy.
Doubt is everywhere, from Holy Saturday to the Sunday of St. Thomas. (Mercy Sunday in the West)

On Holy Saturday the Gospel of Matthew tell us that “the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.” (Matthew 28:16-20)
The Gospel read at Agape Vespers tell us of the doubting Apostle Thomas who proclaims “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25)

And The Orthodox Church even devotes an entire Sunday to honoring the doubt that filled Thomas on the very first Sunday after Pascha.
Doubt has a special place in the Paschal season.

These scripture readings are not a coincidence but an example of how the Orthodox Faith challenges us to bring our doubts to Christ and transform them. “Doubt is but another element of faith” writes St. Augustine of Hippo, while St. Gregory the Great reminds us that, “The disbelief of Thomas has done more for our faith than the faith of the other disciples. As he touches Christ and is won over to belief, every doubt is cast aside, and our faith is strengthened. So the disciple who doubted and then felt Christ’s wounds, becomes a witness to the reality of the resurrection.”

The most beautiful part of Christ dealing with doubt in the scriptures above is the fact that the Son of God does not force us to believe. He invites one to begin a journey of real love. He shows us through His example that every person is called to carry his or her cross and die to those things that do not bring us closer to Him. Doubt is a part of this process that brings new and everlasting life. The Apostle Thomas doubted and yet was invited into an ever-deeper relationship with Jesus Christ. He carried his cross of doubt. Today, there are many Orthodox Christians who have doubts and are in need of a Church that welcomes doubt as a healthy part of what it means to live the Orthodox Christian Faith. http://myocn.net/pascha-and-doubt/
[emphasis added]

[Show Me the Wire]

dnlgfnk:

It seems you are not familiar with holy writ.

boxcar is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. boxcar 1:1

No man is infallible, but fallible man, boxcar, teachings and proclamations are infallible. boxcar 2:1

The witness of the New Testament is not needed to teach the Triune nature of one God. boxcar 3:1

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by boxcar

about the term "God" in the plural. Ready? Everyone brace yourself because this might send y'all into orbit: "Elohiym" (Hebrew for God for those with ADD) is a collective noun. And everyone here knows what a collective noun is, right? Nouns such as family, tribe, crew, army, flock, herd, etc. are typical examples of collective nouns and, with such nouns the singular form of verbs are typically used. Yeah...even in the Hebrew! So...why can't "Elohiym" consist of multiple entities, most especially since there isn't a single verse in scripture that teaches that "Elohiym" is one person -- for good reason I might add since that would truly run counter to the plurality of the noun?

Learn your Hebrew:

"Because of the verb that is being used is singular, we can be confident in our assessment that this is a singular god that is performing all these tasks. Also, the use of the singular verb converts this plural noun into a proper name."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Learn your Hebrew:

"Because of the verb that is being used is singular, we can be confident in our assessment that this is a singular god that is performing all these tasks. Also, the use of the singular verb converts this plural noun into a proper name."

Singular verbs are also used with collective nouns. Live it, love it and learn it.

[traynor]

Some may have found the relevance of Carmen to religion obscure or arcane, but it is neither. Carmen had no interest in those drooling after her. They had already been sold. It was the others--those who did not fall into step with the other droolers--that she was really interested in.

"Si je t'aime, prends garde à toi !"

(Or--in English)

"If you don't love me I love you!"

Similarly, those sold on a particular flavor of religion may be much less desirable by a deity who understands their real motivations as being almost entirely self-centered. In short, avoiding the stick (real or imagined) and pursuing the carrot (real or imagined). Reveal BOTH the stick and the carrot to be illusions created as sales ploys to "persuade" the gullible and see how many "true believers" remain faithful.

A flock that is solely motivated by their own wants, needs, and desires--and the degree to which they "believe" those wants, needs, and desires will be satisfied if they are "faithful"--is enough to make a shepherd decide to go fishing and leave the selfish "flock" to deal with the wolves on their own.

The Conscience: Who are you to even think that you can know the difference between good and evil?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0151137/quotes

[Hank]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Can an Ethiopian change the

Or the leopard, change

If you answered rightly, the same answer applies to man since man cannot change

This is both a biblical statement as well an indisputable fact relevant to the First Law of Logic, i.e. the Law of Identity. Man is broken because his nature is corrupt, evil or sinful...whatever label you wish to affix to it (although I suspect you would avoid all three). But be that as it may -- man's nature can only be fixed by supernatural intervention.

This post is an embarrassment even by your standards Boxie.You begin with a logically incoherent inference,somehow equating the Skin pigmentation of mammals with the "nature of Man".Can an Ethiopian's skin or a leopard's spots be evil or corrupt?Then you trip all over the law if identity, it does not support nor provide any evidence that your assertions about man's Nature are correct.It simply states that Everything that exists has a specific nature.And you complete your Inane trifecta by asserting that this evil sinful creature was somehow created by an Omnipotent,Omniscient entity. Who will fix him, provided he holds the correct beliefs. And by the way, holding these correct beliefs is entirely dependent upon external circumstances outside of the poor creature's control.Very logical.

[Actor]

In the original Religious thread boxcar made a statement (possibly more than once) that the mission of science is to discover causes. That thread has now fallen off the edge of the world so I cannot look up exactly what he said and quote him directly but the above is close enough. I am about to embark on writing a series of posts and as a prelude to that series I present my own statement of what the mission of science.

The mission of science is to develop predictive models of reality. Consider the atomic theory of matter. The model, i.e., the theory, states that everything is made up of particles and forces. It is predictive because it allows us to devise experiments and predict the outcome of those experiments before we actually do them. If the predicted outcome conforms to what we actually observe then the model is confirmed, or at least reinforced. If the predicted outcome is not observed then the model is falsified. In some cases the model need only be refined (e.g., the theory of relativity is a refinement of Newtonian mechanics). In other cases the model has to be thrown out altogether (e.g., the ether model of light propagation).

So far the particle model (atomic theory) of matter seems to be safe. It’s not likely to be falsified. Or has it already been falsified? What about string theory? String theory has yet to be falsified and may never be. Can particle theory and string theory coexist? Yes, they can, as long as both models predict the same results from the same data and experiment confirms the prediction.

Take the expression “I’ve seen it with my own eyes.” This is an example of a predictive model. The model predicts that if a certain image if formed on the retina of our eye then that image corresponds to some object and/or action in the world outside our bodies. This model has never been and is unlikely to ever be falsified.