Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of 4teatwo

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - 4teatwo

1
Community Debates Forum / question of the week april-2 2017 atonement
« on: April 04, 2017, 09:41:43 pm »
supporting the notion of Micah that the interpretation of atonement as penal substitution is logically incoherent unless you are a bright.
First of all it would imply that God would demand a punishment for sin. Considering God to be omnipotent and omniscient. If he would demand punishment for Adam and Eva's sin he would have to punish himself as it was his own creation that went wrong so it was his fault. If you belief in a stupid God be my guest.

It appears that Dr Craig does not understand the problem of the fall, e.g. the fact that God tells Adam and Eve that if they eat from the tree of self realisation the will certainly die as a logic explanation of what will happen when you reject being in the authority of God, e.g. part of the eternal God by becoming an "self" which automatically sets you in conflict with any other self.  He does not say that if you eat from that tree I will kill you but states a logical consequence like we tell our kids that they will die when they touch that high voltage cable.  As such Jesus cannot take on a punishment that we deserve as there is no punishment outstanding, but an offer of love to become one with God again. And Jesus showed us how to do so by submitting to God, even if the path leads to your physical death. No penal substitution but demonstration to us how we can suddenly find ourselves in Jesus and in other peoples hearts when being part of God again.

Just because the person dismissing Anselm is your Doktorvater does not make his thinking infallible nor make it true. Guess it is a bit of fear to object to your superiors opinion, but as Luther said:
"Here I stand and can't do otherwise"
as after all we only need to justify ourselves before God e.g. the logic that resembles the truth of the universe.

2
Found only an old thread here on the subject  but would like some logic clarification.
The definition in Hebrew, that faith is evidence of the unseen, e.g. the faith bearer is evidence for the things that his belief makes him do and that can be tested and checked for coherence. It describes the trust shown in the truth of a belief that allows humans to reach beyond what is known. Thus faith is the expression of trust in the truth of a proposition. The definition of faith to be a belief in the absence of proof is logically incoherent as it would imply the possibility of belief in the presence of proof. Similarly belief in the absence of evidence is logically incoherent. It is a pity that Dr Craig has to my knowledge never addressed this argument properly but belief in the absence of evidence is a logical contradiction as you can only believe in evidence you have as any cognitive process requires evidence. It appears that Atheists entertain the possibility that a belief can be formed without evidence. To a rational thinking person evidence is required to form a belief. You then have to justify to yourself how to act upon this evidence and how the evidence is coherent with things you know already, e.g. things that are proven. So the thing you come to belief to be true has to be unproven to be coherent with causing a believe, e.g. (think and not know) p=true.

Similarly if you confuse evidence with proof, to base a belief on proof appears to be the belief of an idiot as if you require proof to form a belief, you would be unable to acquire knowledge, e.g. you must be so dense that you do not accept the proof as truth verification, thus prove that you "don't get it".

So therefore the term "belief in the absence of evidence" is apparently some mental state specific to people that operate on a logic beyond belief. To admit to have a non-belief e.g. have the absence of a cognitive process when it comes to a proposition is a strange phenomenon. Now if faced with a proposition about anything presented to us in reality leads one to switch of ones brain, where is the point in trying to start a discussion? It sounds like trying to write a word document on a computer that is switched off.

3
Choose Your Own Topic / wine into water
« on: December 20, 2012, 02:43:11 am »
Sorry had put this in the wrong category of discussions under discussion of craig debates whilst it should actually be here.

Having read WLC's article on the problem of miracles http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-problem-of-miracles-a-historical-and-philosophical-perspectiven I feel that I find myself in the position described for Paulus
"Once a person has grasped the spiritual truth of Jesus' person and teaching, miracles become superfluous anyway." in fact it actually testifies to me a lack of belief if it needs a miracle for somone to belief in God or Jesus

Let me point this out in the miracle of Jesus turning wine into water and I delilberately phrase it this way as we run a successful campaign for wateraid under this title.
To me the miracle at Canaan is not that Jesus was a magician - that's for Darren Brown. In fact the miracle itself would put his teaching into question if he would have to lie about the fact that somone could not afford to buy enough wine. Whould Jesus see that as an embarrasment? Would he say you better keep prettending instead of facing reality? The miracle would be a complete "no miracle" if he would have held up the pretence, let alone he would have argued that the most expensive wine was the only thing of value as the thing that counts is the value added by human manipulation, not what God has provided in the first place. In fact how could he ask us to take up our cross if Jesus would fix reality for us. Jesus will fix it has a bitter taste when it comes to wish fullfillment. However to make us finding our fulfillment in following Jesus is an entirely diffrent concept.
The miracle is clear, it shows what can happen when you put your trust in God. Mary trusted God as she knew that Jesus would know what to do as Jesus was in God as God was in Jesus.  Jesus knew he had not yet been given the authority to speak so he trusted that God would reveal his wisdom to the master of the ceremony who was the figure of authority for the celebrations.
The only thing Jesus did was to apply the brutal logic of God, he served the master of ceremony the living water. In that context it is important to understand the role of the ritual cleansing vessels in jewish tradition. The were stone jars as the porosity of ceramic and clay vessels of the day would have provided risks for potential biofilms. They could only be filled with living water, e.g. water from clean wells as the Jews hygiene rules were very strict and they were aware of the risk of stagnant of surface waters so the water had to be completely unspoilt. Apart from it being a significant problem of contaminating those containers with wine it would have sent a message that is akin to materialism thus in strong contradiction to Jesus teachings.

Looking forward to your comments 8)

4
Debates: Miscellaneous / turning wine into water
« on: December 18, 2012, 04:47:44 pm »
having read WLC's article on the problem of miracles http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-problem-of-miracles-a-historical-and-philosophical-perspectiven I feel that I find myself in the position described for Paulus
"Once a person has grasped the spiritual truth of Jesus' person and teaching, miracles become superfluous anyway." in fact it actually testifies to me a lack of belief if it needs a miracle for somone to belief in Jesus

Let me point this out in the miracle of Jesus turning wine into water and I delilberately phrase it this way as we run a successful camapin foor wateraid under this title.
To me the miracle at Canaan is not that Jesus was a magician - that's for Darren Brown. In fact the miracle itself would put all his teaching into question if he would have to lie about the fact that you could not afford to buy enough wine. Whould Jesus see that as an embarrasment? Would he say you better keep prettending instead of facing reality? the miracle would be a complete "no miracle" if he would have held up the pretense, let alone he would have argued that the most expensive wine was the only thing of value as the thing that counts is the value added by human manipulation, not by what God has provided. In fact how could he ask us to take up our cross if Jesus would fix reality for us. Jesus will fix it has a bitter taste when it comes to wish fullfillment. However to make us finding our fulfillment in followng Jesus is an entirely diffrent concept.
The miracle is clear, it shows what can happen when you put your trust in God. MAry trusted God as to know that Jesus would know what to do as JEsus was in God as God was in Jesus. Jesus knwe he had not yet been given the authority to speak so he trusted that God would reveal his wisdom to the master of the ceremony who was the figure of authority for the celebrations.
The only thing Jesus did was to apply the brutal logic of God, he served the master of ceremony the living water. In that context it is important to understand the role of the ritual cleansing vessels in jewish tradition. The were stone jars as the porosity of ceramic and clay vessels of the day would have provided risks for potential biofilms. They could only be filled with living water, e.g. water from clean wells as the Jews hygiene rules were very strict and they were aware of the risk of stagnant of surface waters so the water had to be completely unspoilt. Apart from it being a significant problem of contaminating those containers with wine it would have sent a message that is akin to materialism thus in strong contradiction to Jesus teachings.

Looking forward to your comments 8)

Pages : [1]