Posted on 07/02/2010 6:56:08 PM PDT by Desdemona
I think there is a lot of wisdom in G.K. Chesterton's famous quote:
The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. He is the man who has lost everything except his reason.Einstein said something similar, perhaps more a corollary.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
It's difficult to argue otherwise. Abraham had died, the Prophets had died, past tense, yet Jesus says Abraham rejoiced in the prospect of seeing Jesus’ day.
On the face of it, how else would one interpret it other than as past tense without doing greater violence to what Jesus said.
I would have to ask if there something in the account that would lead me to think that some other tense would be a better fit and the answer is ‘no’.
Psalms chapter 2.
“For one, verse 7 makes no sense in that context (remember also this is supposed to be David's writing): “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son...” Who is saying this? Jesus?”
It makes perfect sense given the Hebrew usage at 2 Sam. 7:14.
Here God says of Solomon, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son.”
Wasn't Solomon and every other male, a Son?
At Psalm 2:7 it is David speaking and it is prophetic of the Christ, Jesus, and I suspect most Christians would agree to that.
Christ like? Of course it is! Christ is going to “shepherd the nations with an iron rod”.
“The Creed leaves no doubt that it had to be the Holy Spirit (”he spoke through the Prophets”).”
I'll hold off on that till Catholics comment on it. Had to be?
Yet God is not subject to human reason. God created human reason. He also created space and time and matter. The master is not slave to that which he created. The categorical difference between the divine and the human is absolutely unbridgeable. All of human reason cannot bridge it.
Thank you so much for your beautiful essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!
Amen. Great post, BD.
No, nothing I believe is a fantastic tale. Or any of that other stuff.
But if somehow I can have what you believe declared a fantastic tale then it would follow you couldn't be rational, because? Because “Rational human beings do not believe fantastic tales”.
You see how that works? Just like heresy. If I get to define the terms I get to decide who is or is not rational.
“Yes it is rational to demand proof because otherwise we agree to believe hearsay, fantastic stories, superstitions, fantasies and hallucinations. Is that rational?”
Last night I heard a man say that billions and billions of galaxies came from a indefinable, dimensionless point and just might someday return there. He believed it or at least he seemed to accept it as fact.
Did he have proof that convinces me? No. Nor would any proof he could offer be convincing.
I think he could be right but he can't prove it and neither can anyone else.
Is he rational? Am I? Yeah. And if I thought him wrong it wouldn't mean either of us is not rational.
I have a friend that believes, at least he says he does, that gray skinned men with small mouths steal baby food from grocery stores. Do I ask for proof? No. No, because I don't think it can be possible no matter his pictures and reams of “secret reports” and clicking sounds on his phone.
I dismiss his “proof” out of hand but I don't accept what he says.
“If someone were to appear before you saying “I am God” what would your reaction be? Would ask for a proof? Or would you fall flat on your face?”
I don't know what my reaction would be but since I already have a strong bias against believing that this would occur I might ask for time to become familiar with the, the someone. No, I wouldn't fall on my face without being convinced first in some way and that would take time.
I think...Probably.
“I never said no proof can possibly exist (where did you pull this from—not form anything I wrote!).”
Can you prove it?.....With proofs that I'll accept as rational?
“I am open to proofs—rational proofs. What else can a rational being expect? Irrational “proofs?”
How could one offer a rational proof for a hullucination?
Any so-called proof would by definition have to be irrational.
KOSTA: Not anywhere in the Bible. God never says anything like that.
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." -- Colossians 1:16-17"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Apparently, your own scripture proves you wrong. "For [God] so loved the world..."
And man has no excuse for not acknowledging that God IS.
Sure he does. Your own scriptures say that only those who have been given the spiritual faculties can. It's not a matter of our will.
How irrational atheists are!
Yes, indeed, for not believing in talking donkeys, and tales of a fantastic world no one has witnessed except in a book.
As betty boop pointed out, the root of the word "rational" is "ratio" - the relation between two things. There must be the standard against which the other is compared for a ratio to exist.
I don't know where betty boop gets her credentials as an etymologist, but my Latin dictionary says ratio means "account, reckoning, invoice; plan; prudence; method; reasoning; rule; regard."
But by denying God, the atheist stands there alone fist raised in the air - meaningless, futile, irrelevant, irrational
As compared to a believer who is meaningful (?), useful (?), relevant (?), and of course rational because he or she believes in magic? Figures.
Talk about turning everything on its head...
The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God... - Psalms 14:1
Yet your own scripture says calling someone a fool puts you in danger of hell fire. Very consistent, and of course rational/s.
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
I don't know I am still waiting for someone to answer me.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
That's pathetic, laughing at little ants.
John was not like Peter who was not like James who was not like Thomas who was not like Paul, etc. Jesus could have chosen twelve Peters or twelve Johns. But He didn't
But he implored them to think like one...
That was not rational at all. It still isn't. That's about as rational as saying your dog will figure out that everyone must pay taxes and die, and learn how to speak.
Problem was this statement could not be proven using reason, so it falls on its own weigh
It was an irrational postulate; that's why.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."—Einstein
Just his private, irrational opinion.
I think the implication was Abraham's resurrection. Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew after all.
Other than that, your reasoning seems fair, but we don't know what was going through the head of the one who wrote those verses. Something convoluted, for sure.
I'll hold off on that till Catholics comment on it. Had to be?
I was raised Eastern Orthodox. I have as much to say about it as any Latin. They recite it every now and then; the Orthodox recite the Creed every Sunday.
The statement "only that which can be known using reason/logic exists" is not proven. It actually disproves itself. That's what falls on its own weight.
The context here is your requirement that God's existence be proven using reason/logic or else God does not exist, and/or cannot be known.
I think that is your position in the last few posts. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If not, then your position/requirement doesn't follow logically and is in fact illogical.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
And, all the more so . . . when . . .
the purported hyper-rationalist
so chronically and relentlessly irrationally
defines everything OTHER THAN their specific, unique and erratically wind-blown intellectual house of cards, as
irratioinal, unscientific, unKNOWable, and the like.
All the worse when their daffynitions—with which their vanity purports to discuss anything—also change with the wind.
It’s a bit like dragging someone into Walmart . . . taking them to the toy department . . . finding a package of little metal jacks and a ball . . . and declaring that all further discussions about COSMIC REALITY must be confined to those jacks and ball.
Then when the draggee sputters and begins to say . . . bbbbut there’s all kinds of other toys and balls and computer games and . . . and besides that, there’s a food dept and a parking lot and a larger community and a State and a Nation and an ocean and . . .
The dragger harumphs to the max and vainly, haughtily insists that ONLY the jacks and ball are reality. Further, that if the draggee has not the horse sense to KNOW that the jacks and ball are the only reality—and to relate accordingly, then the draggee is simply toooo ignorant, subjective and blind to have a discussion with.
Such tactics are sooooooooooooooooooooooo IMPRESSIVE.
/sat
WELL PUT.
MASTERFULLY PUT.
EXCELLENT.
THX.
You are making a common mistake. Ephesians 2: 8 & 9 is incomplete without the next verse that explains that both faith and God-ordained works are necessary for salvation, and your quotes from Galatians say that we are not saved by works of Jewish law, but St. Paul is not saying anything about works of charity. In fct, later on in Galatians 5:6 he contrasts works of charity with works of the law. I believe I already pointed that out to you on this thread.
I must urge you to pray to St. Paul.
Matthew 6:6 - 14 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us today our daily bread. 12Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.'
14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Right then. If the Third Person of the Godhead was speaking at Ex. 3:14 then so too at vss. 15, 16 etc. because there is no change of person speaking.
“The Creed leaves no doubt that it had to be the Holy Spirit (”he spoke through the Prophets”).”
The Spirit is YHWH God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob according to the Creed? Where does that leave God the Father?
“I think the implication was Abraham's resurrection. Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew after all.”
I won't make that leap. The discussion of Jesus’ age, etc leads me to believe that Jesus is saying pretty much what it appears he is, that he existed before Abraham.
For certain if understanding the meaning of what someone wrote is difficult I'm not going to attempt a manuscript mind-meld.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.