Can my God beat your God?

[Christopher M]

Speaking entirely from the perspective of traditional doctrine here...

Originally posted by NorthernMantis
Well even though I am Christian I don't believe that they are all one God. I accept that there is a Father a Son and a holy spirit but they are not one God.

You're violating fundamental Christian beliefs. Just as a matter of proper semantics, if this is what you believe, you're not a Christian.

You're commiting the well known heresies of Arianism and polytheism. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism

Why would God need to show himself as a human being when He already showed himself many times? (i.e. to the people of Israel...)

To found Christianity. Christianity isn't equal to Judaism and Islam just because they're monotheistic. Judaism doesn't preempt the Christian religion just because it's older.

I'm not sure if you're interested specifically in the theological or metaphysical outcomes of God/Christ's personification in Jesus. Say so and I can explain and/or offer links.

I wonder why is it that the Jewish and the people of Islam don't have the same belief?

Because they're different religions.

Originally posted by Serpent
How can you possibly believe the word of the bible or the life of Christ as proposed by Christians if you use deductive reasoning!?

You can't prove or believe anything relying purely on logic. Well... with one exception, you can prove "that at this present moment you have your current set of sensations." Any logical position instead results from argument from foundation... in other words, you make some assumptions as to what you will accept, and argue from there. This is used as often and with as much validity in theology as it is in science or philosophy.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Serpent
What the hell is that in your avatar!?

The infamous Rampage, of course; greatest of the Transformers! A cassette/panther who could often be found in the chest of Soundwave! -bzzt mmm yes megatron-

[cho]

I thought his name was Ravage.

[Christopher M]

Haha... doh... yeah, you're totally right. Rampage is someone else... can't remember who now...

[Serpent]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Serpent
How can you possibly believe the word of the bible or the life of Christ as proposed by Christians if you use deductive reasoning!?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can't prove or believe anything relying purely on logic. Well... with one exception, you can prove "that at this present moment you have your current set of sensations." Any logical position instead results from argument from foundation... in other words, you make some assumptions as to what you will accept, and argue from there. This is used as often and with as much validity in theology as it is in science or philosophy.

You miss my point. I'm suggesting that if he uses deductive reasoning then there's no way he would be able to accept the legion inconsistencies and articles of supernatural in the doctrine.

Then again, see his answer as that does clarify his position a bit.

[Serpent]

Originally posted by Christopher M
Haha... doh... yeah, you're totally right. Rampage is someone else... can't remember who now...

You sure it's not the Almighty *****Bot?

[shaolin kungfu]

Or the powerful vibratatron.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Serpent
You miss my point. I'm suggesting that if he uses deductive reasoning then there's no way he would be able to accept the legion inconsistencies and articles of supernatural in the doctrine.

How so? Like what?

[Serpent]

How could someone use reason and deduce, for example, that a burning bush could talk to someone.

You can accept it on faith, sure, but not with reason.

As for the inconsistencies, the bible is full of contradictions and anyone using reason would deduce that the same person (god in this case) couldn't have said all those things and meant them as they are contradictory.

However, I'm not going to start getting into one of those things where we start quoting bits of the bible at each other. Xtianity is not worth my time beyond a passing conversation...

[Christopher M]

That a burning bush talks to people isn't among the articles of faith Catholics are required to believe.

If you want to take it 'on faith' that there are inconsistencies that can't be explained with logic; of course, you're welcome to your own personal faith.

People probably have an awful lot of time accepting particle-wave duality or even the laws of thermdynamics by reason too...

[Serpent]

It was the first example that came to mind.

As for particle waves and thermodynamics, they are the best ways to explain what we actually see and experience and will always be up for change as further information or empirical evidence becomes available.

Try changing the view of a christian, with or without any kind of evidence.

[shaolin kungfu]

Particle wave theory is a result of hardcore testing and re-testing.

Nothing in the bible can be tested. It even tells you not to try.

[Christopher M]

The views of Christians have changed dramatically over the years. That's what a "theologian" is... they don't just sit around patting their backs about all agreeing. They argue, propose models, etc. It's a changing tradition, like any other.

Contemporary Catholic theology stems mostly from Thomas Aquinas who is closer in time to us than to Jesus. And, even staying with Catholicism, there have been significant changes since then.

Extend that to Christianity generally and you've got almost every different imaginable.

Do you guys really understand the reasons for particle-wave duality?

[joedoe]

Originally posted by shaolin kungfu
Particle wave theory is a result of hardcore testing and re-testing.

Nothing in the bible can be tested. It even tells you not to try.

But it is still only a theory. Granted, it is a theory that adequately fits the behaviour, however it is still subject to change pending further evidence. Just as Newton's Laws of physics were found to not really apply under some conditions in space. An they are Laws, not theories!

[prana]

my 2 cents worth of seriousness.

Buddhism has similar things, some practise are based entirely on logic and and examination, such as Vipasanna (mindfulness) and Metta Bharma (loving kindness), and another totally on unexplained (at least in the western world)(such as mantra recitation, prostrations, and various other "yogas"). Yet, when one puts time into practising the "Western logical" path, they still come to the conclusion of the "more difficult to explain" path.

I dont want to get into the debate of Xtianity and Buddhist here either. Just pointing out that different levels of understanding exists for different people.

Oddly enough, I was brought up with the bible, in a Methodist school, and my uncle is a retired minister I must be JC's biggest rebel I even had one pastor (not related to me) scream at me "Why are you so stupid, why can't you see the proof that jesus resurrected..." or something in that order. Come to think of it, I had a lot of respect for the bible, but my interpretation of it was far different from xtians, I saw things mostly written metaphorically, where many of my friends take them, well literally...

Maybe I am just stupid. Anyway, end of conversation re Xtian and other religion.