Freethought & Rationalism Archive

diana · 12-10-2002, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenM:
Evidently the Hebrew word's most basic meaning is "what breathes" or perhaps "what is alive".

I'm fairly sure it's used of animals in the account of the flood as well as people. Look at what I bolded, below - you'll see the same Hebrew words used in that verse you quoted (which I quoted below) as are later used to describe [non-human] animals, after the flood....

Yes, I know. I'm a huge fan of checking my references.

This is one of the problems I find with the very idea of a soul, which is why I use the term only faciteously or within a theological construct for argument's sake.

The Hebrew word in question (nephesh, right?) is translated "living thing" or "soul," depending upon context. Basically, any given translation of it appears to be chosen for dogmatic reasons rather than linguistic ones.

This is why I've automatically spotted Matthew, for the sake of this discussion, the presence of some essence known as a "soul."

d

diana · 12-10-2002, 11:42 AM

Hi Matthew,

Quote:

Actually, (as if you were implying that I use more than one name on this discussion board) I am not Xman (who came up with the sandwich analogy)

Sorry. My bad. I just remembered the sandwich thing and temporarily forgot there has been more than one theist arguing this point. I didn't mean to imply you're making us look ganged up on by using sockpuppets.

Quote:

You guys seem to want the church doctrine of God and Man in the person of Jesus Christ to say more than it says in order to prove that the church has been illogical for a really long time.

Actually, the church is illogical about many, many things, and has been for a very long time. It's not that I want the church doctrine to about Jesus being fully both god and man to be illogical; it's that I simply cannot buy the doctrine that we're all born sinful creatures in need of redemption and dismiss it when the issue of "essential qualities of man" comes up, based upon the fact that this would make the fully man/god doctrine fall apart.

The bible clearly says we're all sinful. Regardless of what metaphysical philosophers would regard as "essential attributes of man," you'd necessarily have to include "sinful" as an essential attribute of man in order to be consistent with your own theological construct. (If you want to go metaphysical, we'll have to start all over.)

Quote:

Soul is an essential attribute of man. Jesus was incapable of sin. God doesn't have a soul. I don't know why a "manly soul" would cease to be manly if it was infallible because I don't think that fallibility is a essential attribute.

If he was infallible, then I take it you agree that the story of Satan "tempting" him is pointless? If he's incapable of sin, then he won't even consider it. There really is no temptation there, is there?

Quote:

Cicularity is a common failing in these types of arguments. I do have an authority -- scripture and the church. I do believe that scripture is the self-attesting word of God. I do not believe it would be honest for me to say that I am completely objective, but if I were you I wouldn't trust anyone who claimed untainted objectivity -- they do not know themselves enough to control for their lack of objectivity. Gadamer, the postmodern philosopher, echoed scripture when he said that our beliefs become part of who we are.

I wasn't leveling blame at anyone or claiming to be completely objective. I merely pointed out that your definition of "fully" is fully dependent (100%, I mean

) on what you need it to mean.

In any case, I understand your "essential attributes" position. I think. So long as the essential attributes of one being do not contradict the essential attributes of another, the two can coexist peacefully in one person. One entity plus a different entity equals one entity that is entirely (in the "essential" sense) one being but both. ("Essential attributes" are, of course, to be defined by you, whereupon we seem to slip quickly into metaphysical definitions.)

Quote:

That said, I think it is fair to say that a circular argument is not needed in this case because we are assuming the authority of scripture, among other things, in this argument.

You are assuming the authority of the scriptures. If we were assuming the authority of scriptures in this argument, there would be no argument.

Quote:

You yourself border on circularity when you discount my arguments here because they are wrong, without giving your reasons for believing that if the Bible says everyone's got it, it must be essential.

It is my contention that "For all have sinned and falled short of the glory of God" means everybody, and that it is impossible to be born human without this applying. "If a man says he sins not, he is a liar and the truth is not in him." Again...this would mean that, necessarily, you cannot be human without being sinful/fallible. If any one person were, if it were even possible, then these verses are untrue.

When the bible says everyone's sinful (in comparison, it doesn't say that we all have 10 fingers and 10 toes), it necessarily implies that no one can not be sinful and still be human.

(Welcome back to the grind.)

d

(edited for clarity)

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]

Mageth · 12-11-2002, 07:56 AM

I've repeated this several times, but so far without response from Matthew144 (unless I missed it):

Matthew144 said:

On Able to do all things: same. no essential attribute of not able to do all things.

And I repeat:
You gave "physical body" as an essential attribute of man. Having a physical body, man is not able to do all things. Or know all things. Period.

Matthew144 · 12-11-2002, 10:44 AM

It all comes down to your view of the essential attributes of man...

Well, I am worn out. It has been fun, I think I have gained a better understanding of the non-christian position, but I will leave it for someone else to continue this debate with yous guys (and gals).

I will give you all the last word(s) on this one.

Thanks,

M

Evangelion · 12-11-2002, 10:50 AM

Not so fast, matey!

You were supposed to be presenting a definition of the Imago Dei from Genesis 1:26-27.

If you don't want to do this anymore, but you're still interested in seeing mine, just let me know, and I'll post it.

Mageth · 12-11-2002, 11:04 AM

It all comes down to your view of the essential attributes of man...

My point to which I was seeking clarification was drawn from how you defined the essential attributes of man (and god).

Man - physical body
God - able to do all things

To have a being that is "fully man and fully god" would seem to require that the being both have a physical body and be able to do all things. Since a being with a physical body obviously cannot do all things (can't be everywhere at once, for example), such a being cannot exist.

diana · 12-11-2002, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Matthew144:
It all comes down to your view of the essential attributes of man...

Well, I am worn out. It has been fun, I think I have gained a better understanding of the non-christian position, but I will leave it for someone else to continue this debate with yous guys (and gals).

I will give you all the last word(s) on this one.

Thanks,

M

True, Matthew. It all comes down to one's view of what constitutes the essential attributes of man.

When you gave God's essential attributes, you drew them from scripture--since that is your only source of information on the subject. But when you listed man's, you drew his essential attributes from the natural world and didn't incorporate what scripture says he always has.

In my view, you drew your "essential attributes" from different constructs, which is the only way you will be able to combine them.

All the same, I understand your weariness concerning this subject. You have conducted yourself like a gentleman and I've enjoyed this discourse.

d

doodad · 12-11-2002, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen:
I don't think it was a very big sacrifice. To Jesus, it would be like travelling economy class on a plane rather than first class. He KNEW that he would come back to life, and he KNEW how long the pain would last - which would make it much easier to endure.
Also, isn't it a bit absurd for God to sacrifice himself TO himself, in the form of Jesus? Also, a sacrifice implies that you're not going to get it back, but Jesus DID get his life back, so how is that a sacrifice?

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: winstonjen ]

I'll agree the so called sacrifice doesn't make much sense but I would like to point out an apparent assumption of yours. In asking how God sacrificed himself you are implying that Jesus was God, which is a modalistic view of the Trinity.

Jesus was viewed the Messiah by some and the idea that He was sacrificed comes from the Judaic concept of sacrifices being a form of atonement, or reconciliation of one's sins with God. The wierd part is how a dead saviour is supposed to save anyone. It appears that any Messiah that may come along will be sacrificed. That's like a mother of the wild eating its offspring in hopes it will propagate the species. It's like eating
your seed corn or killing the geese that lay golden eggs. Something doesn't add up to me.

If the death of Jesus actually fulfilled prophecy then why didn't people consider the job done and let it lie?

doodad · 12-11-2002, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by worldling:
Very true, winston. For an infinite and omnipotent god to spend 30 years living, 3 hours dying, and 3 days dead, is a sacrifice so infinitessimal as to be virtually non-existent. (If it were claimed that Christ was suffering an eternity in hell for our sins, the equation might just balance out).

But that's not the only problem with the crucifixion story:
- one cannot, logically, repay a debt to oneself. You can cancel it, but you can't repay it - where would the payment come from? Yourself. If you borrowed a tenner off me and I decided that I liked you so much that you didn't have to repay me, I would just cancel the debt. I wouldn't withdraw a tenner from my account and then pay it back in again, saying behold I am repaying the debt you owe me. That would be absurd.
- xians try to overcome this problem by saying god became man in order to repay man's debt. But this is logically impossible too. He cannot be both man and god, both mortal and immortal. That's an illogicality of the A=not A variety.

These problems with the crucifixion story render any debates about the historicity of the gospels redundant. If the story itself is so patently preposterous apologists can argue till they are blue in the face about Jesus being as historical as Alexander etc etc - that's not going to make the least bit difference to its essential absurdity.

It appears that the followers of Jesus were rationalizing his death by saying he paid for man's sins. Sacrifice was viewed as a form of atonement or giving up something or payment intended to appease God. It makes more sense to me to think that Jesus died rather than renounce his beliefs, which was a demonstration of his faith in God. But to die for our sins sounds a bit squirley to me. I guess one could say that dying was a form of sacrifice to the Judaic way of thinking because they killed young lambs and offered them as sacrifices. Maybe the would be Christians made him a martyr to their cause in order to generate sympathy and support.

Does the fact that someone spinned an absurd yarn negate the possiblility that Jesus existed as a mortal being and that he was crucified? I think his existence and crucifixion is still plausible. It's the purported purpose that his death served that is questionable.

doodad · 12-11-2002, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by diana:
xians try to overcome this problem by saying god became man in order to repay man's debt.

winstonjen,

Yes. The whole biblical analogy between justice and "paying debts" is flawed, as well. IF you can buy the idea that we're all sinful due to the unwitting error of a forebear--the whole Fruit of the TOKOGAE thing presupposes a knowledge of good and evil and an understanding of what is meant by "death," which according to the story, A&E didn't have--it's still utterly ridiculous to suggest than a person can commit a crime and justice has been served if someone else accepts his punishment, which the "paying our debt" analogy posits.

The whole thing is so utterly absurd, my only problem with arguing it with a believer is trying to decide where to start pointing out the flaws.

d

I'll agree it's absurd Diana. Perhaps the story represents his followers' way of trying to emotionally justify, or rationalize, his senseless death. They tried to make sense out of it and then hung a martyr label on him in order to generate sympathy and support for his worldview.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-11-2002, 07:56 AM	#123
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I've repeated this several times, but so far without response from Matthew144 (unless I missed it): Matthew144 said: On Able to do all things: same. no essential attribute of not able to do all things. And I repeat: You gave "physical body" as an essential attribute of man. Having a physical body, man is not able to do all things. Or know all things. Period.

12-11-2002, 10:44 AM	#124
Matthew144 Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Orlando Posts: 13	It all comes down to your view of the essential attributes of man... Well, I am worn out. It has been fun, I think I have gained a better understanding of the non-christian position, but I will leave it for someone else to continue this debate with yous guys (and gals). I will give you all the last word(s) on this one. Thanks, M

12-11-2002, 10:50 AM	#125
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	Not so fast, matey! You were supposed to be presenting a definition of the Imago Dei from Genesis 1:26-27. If you don't want to do this anymore, but you're still interested in seeing mine, just let me know, and I'll post it.

12-11-2002, 11:04 AM	#126
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	It all comes down to your view of the essential attributes of man... My point to which I was seeking clarification was drawn from how you defined the essential attributes of man (and god). Man - physical body God - able to do all things To have a being that is "fully man and fully god" would seem to require that the being both have a physical body and be able to do all things. Since a being with a physical body obviously cannot do all things (can't be everywhere at once, for example), such a being cannot exist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.