Tom Sawyer

Yes it becomes truth for you. The thing is, though, that it's a truth about an imaginary thing and therefore completely irrelevant to the real world. It's similarly true that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father and that he turned from the Dark Side and killed the Emperor to save his son. That is a factual statement in the same way that saying Jesus is God is a factual statement.

Similarly, if someone were to say that Darth Vader faked his own death as part of some nefarious plot, that would be as true as saying that Jesus is not God. There'd be some issues with copyright violation against Lucas Films, but since there isn't a person called Darth Vader or God, any statements made about them or their characteristics are as valid as any others since there is no entity in the real world to match those against.

There's no way to frame the debate about whether or not Jesus is God except as between particular viewpoints since those viewpoints cannot be validated against anything. So your saying that Jesus is God is just as valid a statement as someone who says He's not or someone else who says that Darth Vader faked his own death because he wanted to get out from under the Emperor's control and take over the New Republic.

They are imaginary characters from stories, so their characteristics can be rewritten by anyone at any time for any reason and have nothing to be validated against.

220volt

It is ok to fantasize and have imaginary friends, but sooner or later you have to grow up and admit what is reality.
Yes, you can say that Jesus is whatever you want him to be, you can say that you really don't exist and no one can prove 100% that you do, or you can simply say that you came from planet Zordak where everyone laughs and wears togas.
Reality is that there is far more evidence that none of those things are true.
Thinking in abstract terms like DeamM and some of you are doing is ok once in while to exercise your neurons, but it will not accomplish or help anything in the real world. (and please don't ask me to define real world here. If you cannot define it yourself then you need to check into special institution)
I say it is time to grow up and help the science do the thing they do best. Unveiling the mysteries in this world and beyond while at the same time debunking people like you.

My 0.02c

DeanM

Science is a good premise with which to base your understanding. I am curious to see if you have evn read my original post regarding relativity and the orbits of planets to back up my theory that both schools of thought regarding Jesus as a deity could be correct. Rather than rewrite it, I ask that you scroll up and read it.

Science does not 'debunk' my theory. It supports it, and I will quote from scientific pool as needed to further my point.

Alas, you seem to be be so caught up in the fact that I personally believe that Jesus is God, and are so ready to argue, that you have missed the point of this thread completely. I suggest, again, that you scroll up and read the title of the thread.

Then, if you have anything pertinent to say, and you would care to stay on topic rather than try to derail this thread, I welcome your Ideas.

The only remotely relevant claim that you make is that Jesus, being mythical, precludes rational discussion. You prefer the provable.

The notion of air used to be ridiculous, until it was scientifically proved to exist. Now, we all believe in it. Science to the rescue. Are scientists right? Yes. Are the other non believers right? Yes as well. In fact the space in between the molecules of gas is far greater than the space occupied by the molecules. In fact, air is mostly nothing. So much so, that air is practically nothing. Both schools are right.


As scientists seek to unravel the origin of the universe, they are stumped. Why? Because science yields impossible results to the questions of the first moments of creation.

Let's take two ideas and see if we can draw a connection:

Science says: "We can only make sense of the universe after it has been in existence a sufficient amount of time."

Theists say: "God created the universe"

Scientist cannot disprove God, but agree that a god-like force would be necessary at the moment of creation. If not god-like, than certainly a force beyond natures laws, ie supernatural.

So science needs supernatural to make the universe work, and theists keep waving their flag saying "We have the answer", and the two camps do not agree.

My point is, So What that they do not agree. Science has a track record of showing that many arguments end with both schools being right. In the end, it depends on the viewpoint of the observer. I'm in a position to see one side, you are in the other. You're right, but so am I.

So, instead of trying to convince that you're right, which I conceded long ago, try to convince me that we both can not be right. And science is a great tool for you to explore in that regard. I welcome provable science. I also welcome the limitations of science where mankinds understanding fails to yield rational answers.

IonMic

Of course if Jesus and God are both gods then the questions begs, are there any more gods?

DeanM

Ice is Water. Steam is Water. Both are seperate entities. Are there more forms of Water?

IonMic

I would argue that steam and ice and water represent three 'states' of the same entity. That entity is water. So therefore there is only one entity in different states.

Now lets expand on your 'Water Theory' a little.

Lets say:

Heavenly Father = Water

Jesus = Ice

The Holy Ghost = Steam

now if we look at the biblical account of Jesus baptism, we find that Jesus is present as a man(ICE), Heavenly Father is present speaking from the Heavens (Water) and The Holy Ghost is also present as a dove (Steam). So to test your analogy that God is like water and holds multiple states lets take a sealable plastic container and pour in some boiling water and an ice cube and close the lid. What happens?

The ice melts, the steam cools and all we end up with is water.

Which means that whilst is sounds good to say:
The reality is that these states cannot coexist at the same time in the same place and can only exist in separation. As the bible shows us an example of these 3 'states of God' coexisting, we can only presume that these three things are completely different physical entities.

Styrofoamdeity

What is wrong with this argument is that if believing something makes it true (for you at least) then the argument cannot be restricted to only such things as "ice is water" and "steam is water". It must be expanded to "donuts are water", "oil is water" and "non-water is water", as long as someone out there- say a lunatic- believes one of these things to be true.

You are arbitrarily using somewhat rational examples. Since you apparently believe that Jesus was god and not-god at the same time, then you can equally convince yourself that arsenic is vitamin B and will do you no harm (in your world).

Styrofoamdeity

Dean, in the post above I tried to show you that your argument is implausible. Now I would like to show you how it is impractical. Let's imagine you have a young daughter. She announces to you one day that she is going to drive a car at 100 miles per hour into a wall, because she believes that in all likelihood all the atoms in her body and the car will, through some sort of quantum abnormality, blink off before hitting the wall then blink back on on the other side. She's sure because "in her world" physics works like this. Frankly you cannot "prove" that it won't happen as she says it will.

So what do you do? Do you say "Well, since it's true in your world, it might work. Go ahead and give it a try". Or do you say "Go ahead and give it a try. If you get killed from being slammed against the wall I'll just believe you are alive in my world, and everything will be OK!"?

I suspect not, because deep down you realize that believing something does not make it true. You are using this rather flimsy argument as a prop to believe in logical absurdities.

I feel that atheists sometimes explain their own reasoning rather badly. It is not "I need evidence for everything". There are vast numbers of things both possible and unknown, such as the possibility of all the atoms in your body blinking off at once then emerging whole on the other side of a wall. Atheists are more on target when they point out that by simple reasoning the odds for Jesus being god and non-god at the same time are too small to bother with, and the entire concept too self-contradictory to be taken seriously.

DeanM

You assume that the physical properties of matter, which are quite quantifiable, such as a brick wall, can be attributed to the ethereal. Even if your premise worked with all material objects, your theory would still be flawed.

Here's some proof that even material is not fully quantifiable
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/quantu...erg-quotes.htm

Which leaves us with the ethereal, which poses no harm to my daughter, as in your example.

What we are discussing is a perception. You see the glass as half full, I see it as half empty. Are we not both right? There are many examples of two observers seeing things differently, yet both being correct.

You see the planet's orbit as an ellipse, to me it is heliocentric. It just depends where you are standing when you look at it. Are the two shapes mutually exclusive in the eyes of science? Perhaps to an eighth grader they are. The more we learn, the easier it is to see what I'm talking about.

You say Jesus was not God. Why? It's a combination of deductions you have made based on what you understand to be true. From your viewpoint, you cannot see it. Just like you see the shape of the planet's orbit, to you, it becomes truth.

I say Jesus is God. Why? Same reasons, just from another perspective. For me, that is the truth.

Are we both correct? Yup.