Mageth

Chrisitian:

Nobody technically "dies" as in "ease to exist." [sic]

Everyone I knew that died ceased to exist, except in my memory, and to the best of my knowledge. What evidence do you have, other than the rather unconvincing words from a 2000-year-old religious text, that any of them still exist?

He did. But knowing all about something and personally experiencing it are two different things.

Ah, but he's God. Among the things he'd know, being omniscient and all, was what it was like to personally experience human existence, indeed, the personal experience of every person who's ever lived, even without himself "personally experiencing" it. Or is god's knowledge limited by what he experiences?

And He also wanted the aspect of fellowship with us than can only be gained by becoming one of us.

Jesus learned nothing about fellowshipping with me, as he supposedly died some 1920 years before I was born. I've never met the man, much less fellowshipped with him. He didn't become "one of us", he became one of a group of people in an obscure corner of the Mideast 20 centuries ago.

I imagine that a number of people in history have willingly forfeited 1/3 of their life in order to save others. Very few have done it in order to save their enemies. That aspect of Christ’s sacrifice is very great, but not cosmic.

"Jesus gave up 1/3 of his life for your sins". That's make a great tract.

If Christ really died to save his enemies, then can I assume everyone will be saved? Do you believe that, or will some of Christ's enemies not be saved?

Not one of Christ's "enemies" will be saved according to Christiainity, the way I understand it - Christians are the only ones to be saved. By definition, a Christian is not an enemy of Christ, and god, through his omniscience, would have known those that were to be saved would be his friends, no?

The thing that makes Christ’s sacrifice so great is who He was. The temporal fleshly existence of God is infinitely valuable.

Why so? It's within god's power to experience "temporal fleshly existence" as many times as he wishes, as well as any other form of god-conceivable experience, I assume. Value is typically associated with rarity. For all we know, if god exists, she has visited earth (or even other worlds, or universes) many millions or billions of times to experience "temporal fleshly existence." She's certainly capable of that, if she has all the power typically ascribed to him. If Christ's temporal fleshly existence is indeed a rare, or even a singular, event, then it's because god chose to have it that way. It's an artificial value, not an intrinsic value. Similar to the reason diamonds are valuable - the producers tightly control supply.

In any event, an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god would know everything there is to know - he'd know exactly what it was like to be me, to be you, to be a lion in Africa, to be a zebra being stalked, killed, and eaten by the lion, to be a tick on the back of the zebra, to be an oxpecker eating the tick, to be a buzzard picking on the carcass of the zebra....

It’s like the difference between giving away a plain old rock and giving away a 20-carrot diamond. In both cases you are sacrificing one hard round thing about that big. But because of the intrinsic value of the item it is a much greater sacrifice to give away the diamond.

The supposedly intrinsic value of a diamond is an artificial value. If diamonds were as common as your average "plain old rock", they would have little intrinsic value (they're valuable for industrial purposes, as well, so they would at least retain that value, but if there was lots of them they'd be dirt-cheap, so to speak). Further, if you were stranded on a desert island, a coconut grove, and a "plain old rock" just right for cracking them, would both have far more "intrinsic" value to you than an entire diamond mine.

Muad'Dib

Thanks, that makes things clearer. I still have a few more questions though, just so I can understand where you're coming from:

Is this particular restricted version of arithmetic all the mathematics that is self-evident, or is there more? Subtraction is if addition is, I bet; but what about multiplication? Division? Exponentiation? Logarithms? How about fractions?

If I understand you correctly, you would say that "5 things and 8 things, grouped together, makes 13 things" is self-evident. But...

...would you say that "337,098,734,190,237,409,871,432 things and 873,102,938,476,019,283,740,182 things, grouped together, makes 1,210,201,672,666,256,693,611,614 things" is self-evident? Or is it rather the case that you go through a process (specifically, addition by hand) to determine that it's true? To me, something you have to spend time verifying is (by definition) not self-evident.

Look at children who haven't yet learned about numbers. You ask them what 2 + 2 is, and they'll give you a blank look. But spend a few months teaching them to count and eventually they'll be able to tell you the answer is 4.

This "learning to count" is at the core of my point here. The acceptance of this process of counting, from a logical (though not a psychological) standpoint, is equivalent to implicitly accepting the axioms of number theory. So when you describe your grouping process, it is unquestionably and evidently (though not self-evidently) true provided the axioms of number theory are granted. (Peano's axioms is one such set of arithemetic axioms.)

Logically, arithmetic as defined by the Peano axioms is consistent; metaphysically, it has an amazing level of applicability to real-world problems; but ontologically it's an exercise in begging the question. You can always go back to the axioms, and if you change the axioms you can get a system that's just as logically consistent.

That's where I'm confused about your comparison between mathematics and justice. Your restricted arithmetic is true assuming some axioms, but what axioms of justice are there to work with? Is there a propositional algebra that can be applied to the objects in the abstract realm of justice? Do you get the same problems with undecidable statements in justice as you do in mathematics?

Thanks for taking the trouble to do that. I would have provided a link for you if I had been thinking. If there's anything in this post you want further information on, let me know and I'd be happy to do the legwork.

The most relevant difference, at least here, is that an axiomatic framework is what is dealt with in mathematics and a definitional framework is not (at least not by that name). Really, it's a fancy way of describing a list of assumptions that you'll be acting on. The Peano's axioms link above is an example.

Hope this helps,

Take care,
Muad'Dib

Radorth

Re Mageth:

Oh I dunno. 10,000 after-death and near-death experiences, quite a few lasting hours to days?

I know. All caused by oxygen deprivation, and liars.

What's the difference? He doesn't have to be perfectly omniscient of everything to be a good God, or to be infinitely more wise and powerful than us. There were other reasons Jesus came in the flesh as well. (See Hebrews)

Perhaps he's knocking at a door you haven't opened yet.

No. There are simple and just conditions some will refuse to meet.

Rad

Jeremy Pallant

Simple and just conditions? Ah yes. To quote Ambrose Bierce "Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." That's his definition of faith, taken from the Devil's Dictionary.

Yes, it is simple.

However, is it just to be asked to believe in something when no evidence beyond the pages of a 2,000+ year old book is provided?

You'll have to do better than that.

Justin70

"The Jesus Mysteries" proposes the 'theory' (or even 'idea') that Gnosis and Literally Christianity were in conflict with one another. Gnosis being considered a kind of 'pre' Christianity with a completely different idea of what Christianity was all about.

When I was reading the book I was thinking that if Gnostic Christianity (according to the book's definitions and teachings) had actually won out as THE Christianity, I think today it would garner a whole lot more respect. What do you think?

Justin70

"It has Kneph the Holy Spirit of the Egyptians announcing to a virgin that she would give birth to god's son. Next mural shows the virgin giving birth to Horus or Aten (Sun God) and son of God the Father Amun. In the final mural it has the virgin with the baby Aten in a manger attended by shepherds and visited by three kings with gifts. In the background is Amun the Father and on the other side Kneph (also called Ra) the Holy Spirit."

I have a picture of this (somewhat blurred though) - It's a wonderful testimony to mythology through the ages! I'd love to get a clearer picture cuz I personally think it's beautiful!

And go figure, I'm an atheist. I just love religious art =)

Fiach

My visit to Luxor was courtesy of Her Majesty's military forces. My camera was stolen with a tote bag in Cairo, the b**tards probalby trashed the film and sold the camera for cigarettes. I would like to go back but I don't look Arabic and non-Arabs and Non-Nubians are targets now. I agree with you, I am an Atheist and I love the ancient pre-Mediaeval Christian Hymns especially those in Old Gaelic by the Monks of Glenstall Abbey in Limerick, Ireland. I have visited so many churches and ruins of churches in Europe and North Africa that I have probably seen more churches than fundy christians.

Fiach

Radorth

You mean like huge revivals producing miraculous and pervasive changes in behavior, documented healings, spontaneous speaking in tongues, ADE experiences- that kind of thing?

Yeah we know. It's all caused by oxygen deprivation and charismatic preachers fooling everybody.

Rad

Yellum Notnef

Will you be providing evidence for any of this or will we need to take another poll first?

Radorth

Given Jesus-myther's standards of proof for their theories, mine is downright rational.

Rad