-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So, can you tell me who gets to define what a human is?
Depends on whether we live in an Issac Asimov novel or not.
Paul's Message is Irrefutable
Posts
Total:
244
-->
@FLRW
Is the contributor of sperm to a recipient of artificial insemination always married to the recipient? There are other means of pregnancy than coitus, or weren’t you taught that in your elementary porn education?
-->
@fauxlaw
Didn't Joseph hear Mary yelling in the next room, Oh God!, Oh God!, Oh God?
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don't think so? But I have not read Isaac Asimov so the reference was lost on me.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Are you takling to me or Discipulus? “Jesus came through usual means—God and Mary had sexual relations.” An irreverent take on the Virgin Birth by author and scientist Isaac Asimov manages to offend everybody’s sentiment. God was wondering where to go on his vacation. An angel advises him to consider planet earth. God says, “No. I went there two thousand years ago, had an affair with a little Jewish girl and everybody has been talking about my son ever since.” That version jars religious feeling. But it gets our attention. It shows how non-Christians view the hallowed story. At least, Asimov’s story relates Jesus to God.
-->
@FLRW
I won't dignify that with a direct comment. The point is, Joseph, other than being mentioned as being espoused [engaged in our syntax] to
Mary, is not mentioned in Luke 1, and hearing nothing, was most likely in another house at the time.
-->
@FLRW
Everyone will answer to God for their irreverence. That includes you, me, and Isaac Asimov. We have all lied, stolen, blasphemed God, among countless other evil acts in violation of God's law. Perhaps you should go back to my OP and simply ask yourself, away from the comment section in this forum, is it true?
"But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." -2 Peter 3:7
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
“The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends, No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.” -Albert Einstein 1954
-->
@FLRW
"the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing..."
-the Apostle Paul
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
The terrorists before they flew into the World Trade Center said Allahu Akbar (God is the Greatest).
-->
@FLRW
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven"
-Jesus
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't think so? But I have not read Isaac Asimov so the reference was lost on me.
Often considered the father of modern science fiction, one if his most popular stories was a series of books where sentient robots were invented, they had three core rules programed into them as un-bypassable safety features:
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.2)A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
Many of his stories revolved around certain unintended consequences of these laws based on the interpretation of these rules. Some robots for example were programed to only recognize people with a certain accent as human, others concluded that because they possessed human intellect and emotions they themselves deserved human rights and counted and being with feelings as 'human' under the above laws.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
That certainly sounds like it touches on some of the issues related to the question. And perhaps I am missing some context that would give me an answer, but how would you answer the question about who gets to define what a human is? Unless you're saying there is no set definition?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
but how would you answer the question about who gets to define what a human is?
The ones who use words to communicate with each other are the ones that decide what those words mean, that is the whole point of language in the first place. Therefore the ones who decide what is human are humans themselves. If two speakers disagree on the meaning of that word then the most efficient way to resolve that disagreement would be either for one to agree to use some other word for their conception of what is human or for both to explain what they mean when they use the word so that both can conceptualize what the other is saying and meaning when they speak on the matter.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I agree that we are the ones who create words and their definitions. However, words in and of themselves do not change the ontological nature of a thing. If I see a horse but I call it a tree, it doesn't change the fact that I am looking at a large four-legged animal. But in this case, my deviation from the accepted definition of tree will probably not cause an ethical dilemma.
On the other hand, if I exclude a fetus from the definition of human because it has not exited the birth canal, all of a sudden we have an ethical issue created by a definition. If human rights only apply to humans, then our definition of "human" will have serious ethical implications. So, if those who are communicating cannot agree on what a human is in the abortion debate, how can we ever know whether a fetus is a human?
"Therefore the ones who decide what is human are humans themselves."
So "humans" get to decide what a human is. But who or what gets to decide what "humans" are?
I may not be the only one dabbling in circular reasoning here. Unless the ability to communicate qualifies someone to make a decision about whether or not someone else is a human?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
If this were a thread about abortion then I could easily say for the sake of easier communication "I do not think fetuses should be aborted regardless of whether they are considered human or not", then you or anyone else would be free to disagree with me and explain why. The discussion of whether fetuses are human would be an irrelevant tangent in that scenario.
Importantly, however, this thread topic says nothing about abortion. This thread topic doesn't even say anything about morality.
This thread started not by proclaiming that the words of Paul were morally good, but instead that they were irrefutably true. I see no reason to confuse those two statements. No logical reason, anyway.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It seems that from the beginning, your main contention has been that I am engaged in circular reasoning. I am making the point that everyone has to appeal to circular reasoning eventually because everyone has an ultimate authority they appeal to in order to validate or know what is true. My authority is the Bible because it is the revealed will of God. Your authority is yourself, which we have seen has allowed you to justify adultery as a morally neutral, or even good, action.
But if you would like me to go back the point of the thread, I can do that. Here is Paul's message that you may want to read carefully:
"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.' Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead."-- Acts 17:24-31
Here is my summary of Paul's message:
God is Creator of all things and is Lord over all (Acts 17:24). He created mankind and is sovereign over kings and nations (v. 26). God is completely distinct and separate from creation (v. 29). God is not only Creator of mankind, but also Judge (v. 31). Since all are guilty of transgressing God's law - or guilty of sin - all must repent of their sins to be saved from the coming judgment (v. 30-31). The proof and assurance of salvation for those who repent is the resurrection of the Jesus Christ (v. 31).
Is Paul's message true?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Circular reasoning means to use two or more axioms to justify eachother, as an example:
A is true because B
A is true because B
B is true because C
C is true because A
To illustrate more clearly, an example of being wrong that does not include circular reasoning would be the following:
A is true if B is true
B has no justification
So, you made the accusation of circular reasoning but never bothered to explain what I said that justified this accusation. Do so now please.
1) List the statements or claims I made that resulted in circular reasoning.
2) Quote my words as to where I say said claims justify eachother.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
"Therefore the ones who decide what is human are humans themselves."
I was making my point before you told me I was going on a tangent. This is one area where you have to appeal to circular reasoning in order to avoid serious moral dilemmas. If "humans" get to decide what a human is, who or what gets to decide what "humans" are?
Of course, discussing circular reasoning wasn't mentioned in the OP, so perhaps I shouldn't discuss anything but that without being accused of going on tangents. After carefully reading my reiteration and summary of Paul's message in Acts 17:34-31, which I know you read carefully and thoughtfully without just skimming through, is it true?
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
If "humans" get to decide what a human is, who or what gets to decide what "humans" are?
If you went back 2000 years and asked that question nobody would understand what you were even saying, therefore whoever or whatever decided that must have done so some time between then and now.
After carefully reading my reiteration and summary of Paul's message in Acts 17:34-31, which I know you read carefully and thoughtfully without just skimming through, is it true?
I am not aware of any evidence that it is, and therefore have no reason to believe so.
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
"If you went back 2000 years and asked that question nobody would understand what you were even saying"
There are at least a large number of Jews and Christians who did:
- "Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature" (Genesis 2:7).
- "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being (John 1:3).
- "...and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation," (Acts 17:26)
They clearly understood the implications of understanding the nature of humanity in relation to God, and the distinctness of humans from animals.
"I am not aware of any evidence that it is, and therefore have no reason to believe so."
If you have honestly considered the truthfulness of the claim, I can ask no more of you, and that was the whole point of this thread. Additional discussion was merely optional. However, I must warn you that God is real and judgment is coming. You can reject that for the belief that we are all just meaningless clumps of stardust in a purposeless universe, but I think you understand there is more to your existence than that. And I think you understand that adultery is wrong, stealing is wrong, lying is wrong, among a great number of other evil things that happen in the world. And no matter how hard we try to convince ourselves that we are overall good people, we are all guilty and when we stand before God, He would be right to condemn us for our evil. So think of me as a fool if you like, it means little to me. But the next time you're confronted with your own mortality and fleeting existence on this earth, I hope you consider my question again: is it true?
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." (John 3:16-19).
64 days later
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
-->@StephenIn Acts 17:24-31, I've already said Paul does not use the specific words "physical" or "spiritual" as a modifier for the term "resurrection" in this particular passage. However, Paul is explicitly clear elsewhere in Scripture that the resurrection is a physical bodily resurrection and not just spiritual. Perhaps you will now enlighten us all with the knowledge of such an astute biblical scholar like yourself. I can tell how strongly you desire to share your infinite wisdom with all of us.
First, I would like to say I think you are spot on with most of your posts and I am in agreement with you, but in relation to the resurrection, I believe Jesus rose from the dead physically (no dispute on my part), yet I believe the nature of the resurrection of believers spoke of in the NT is in terms of a spiritual resurrection and relationship with God. I believe Paul teaches this too.
Every NT author seems to reiterate a spiritual union with God. Whether that includes a physical bodily resurrection is possible (and I don't dispute it) yet as in the Garden, the death Adam died to God that day was a spiritual separation, not a physical one. Resurrection brings up the nature of the death that Adam died that day. It was hundreds of years later before Adam died physically, yet God said on the DAY he ate of the tree of knowledge he would surely die. So, the undercurrent of the resurrection of believers taught in the NT is of a spiritual nature (reunited with God and victory over sin, once for all), as shown by the Second Coming. I believe I can provide better evidence than you that the Bible and history (His story) teaches that Jesus came again in AD 70 (as the Second Coming) in a spiritual sense, not a physical one, and at that coming the resurrection of the dead. I would be pleased to debate you as a fellow believer on this subject (The Nature of the Resurrection of Believers as Taught in Scripture). In the mean time I leave you with some verses to consider.
We also speak these things, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
Foundations for Living
And I, brothers and sisters, could not speak to you as spiritual people, but only as fleshly, as to infants in Christ.
And I, brothers and sisters, could not speak to you as spiritual people, but only as fleshly, as to infants in Christ.
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
Granted, I do not understand completely the nature of the spiritual body.
Therefore from now on we recognize no one by the flesh; even though we have known Christ by the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ,
The Promised Land of the NT is different from the OT promised land. Ours is a heavenly country.
God is a spiritual Being and those who worship Him must worship in SPIRIT and in truth.
and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things having come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made by hands, that is, not of this creation;
For Christ did not enter a holy place made by hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
One Sacrifice of Christ Is Sufficient
For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the form of those things itself, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually every year, make those who approach perfect.
By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
That last verse is an interesting statement. The OT writings speak of the physical reality but the NT is cloaked in the spiritual reality. Israel of the OT is a physical people. The NT Israel of God is a spiritual body of believers. The crossing from bondage to freedom is a physical journey. Our circumcision is of the heart, not of the body. Our baptism is identifies with the physical crossing of the Red Sea but we are baptized into Christ. Our victory over bondage and sin is a spiritual victory. The OT tabernacle is a physical structure yet the author of Hebrews speaks of the greater spiritual truth that is found in Jesus Christ. Every aspect of that physical temple and tabernacle points to a greater spiritual truth found in Jesus Christ. Every aspect of the believers life also can be seen in a spiritual sense, such as our circumcision of our hearts. We constantly see the shadows and types in the OT physical reality expressed in a greater spiritual reality in the NT. The one covenant is by works or what the sinner does, the other is by grace, or what God has done in meeting the law on behalf of those who believe. The advocate of the OT (Moses) brought the people to the Promised Land but could not bring them in. That was left for another (Jesus Christ). Moses was the one who pointed to Him.
Second, in regards to Stephen, I am seldom (if ever) in agreement of his harmful and corrupt views of the Bible.
Keep up the good fight!
-->
@SkepticalOne
-->@Fruit_InspectorNo. I'm saying claims should not be accepted as true until they can be shown connected to objective reality in some way.Can you show Paul is talking about a real thing? If not, you're skipping a step in asking for refutation.
I'm curious. In regards to what?
-->
@PGA2.0
Second, in regards to Stephen, I am seldom (if ever) in agreement of his harmful and corrupt views of the Bible.
Yes, he seems like your typical militant atheist who has no interest in an honest conversation. And my guess is that he monitors the religious section so he probably won't be able to help himself from piping in.
So would you consider yourself a full preterist? I am relatively unfamiliar with those particular beliefs, other than viewing the Second Coming as being fulfilled in AD 70.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Do you know for sure what happens after you die? Or are you just skeptical of the claim of the Bible without actually knowing yourself?I don't know what happens after death and neither does anyone else.
Massive assumption and assertion.
-->
@PGA2.0
No. I'm saying claims should not be accepted as true until they can be shown connected to objective reality in some way.Can you show Paul is talking about a real thing? If not, you're skipping a step in asking for refutation.I'm curious. In regards to what?
Something in the thread, I'm sure. (I don't remember, it was a long time ago!)
Welcome back, Peter!
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you know for sure what happens after you die? Or are you just skeptical of the claim of the Bible without actually knowing yourself?I don't know what happens after death and neither does anyone else.Massive assumption and assertion.
Ok, I will amend my statement:
I don't know what happens after death, and no one that I know of can show they know more. ;-)
Better?
Stephen Hawking spoke candidly in a 2011 Guardian interview about what he believes happens when people die. He told the Guardian that while he "wasn't afraid of death," he was in no hurry to die. "I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail," he said. "There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
Wow, SkepticalOne sounds like Hawking and PGA2.0 sounds like Jim Bakker.
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Second, in regards to Stephen, I am seldom (if ever) in agreement of his harmful and corrupt views of the Bible.Yes, he seems like your typical militant atheist who has no interest in an honest conversation. And my guess is that he monitors the religious section so he probably won't be able to help himself from piping in.
Agreed, and as such I believe he seems only interested in his boxed in view.
So would you consider yourself a full preterist? I am relatively unfamiliar with those particular beliefs, other than viewing the Second Coming as being fulfilled in AD 70.
I favour full Preterist and have not found a solid combined biblical/historical argument against it.
The question is, did the "law" pass away in AD 70?, as Matthew said in 5:17-18,
17 “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not [a]the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!
You see, if not one little jot or stroke of the Law of Moses has passed away, then where are the animal sacrifices to atone for sin mandated under the law? Where is the priesthood? Where is the temple? Where are the genealogical records that link the Levitical priesthood to Arron? They passed away in AD 70. They are no longer needed because we live under a better covenant.
He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, completely. Thus, since it can be shown that the Law of Moses cannot be fulfilled as stated and agreed to after AD 70, then the reality is that Jesus has fulfilled it. Not only this, who did Jesus (the promised Messiah) come to? He came to His own, yet many did not receive Him. Thus, the judgment of God was soon coming upon them, as Jesus, John the Baptist and every NT author constantly warned. Jesus promised that "this generation" would not pass away until everything was fulfilled.
Furthermore, notice that the verse does not only include the Law but also prophecy.
If you pay attention to the relevant audience of address it is a 1st-century audience, not us. We are the secondary audience.
-->
@SkepticalOne
-->@PGA2.0Do you know for sure what happens after you die? Or are you just skeptical of the claim of the Bible without actually knowing yourself?I don't know what happens after death and neither does anyone else.Massive assumption and assertion.Ok, I will amend my statement:I don't know what happens after death, and no one that I know of can show they know more. ;-)Better?
Again, it is your presumption that no one can show they know. We can show we know to a reasonable degree. Can you do better? Whether you accept that reason is another question. We have a record that can be traced back to the 1st-century. The records of Scripture in many areas can be confirmed by extra-biblical writings and history. People, places, events actually happened, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. We know that some of the OT writings can be confirmed as being written before the 1st-century. We have circumstantial and testimonial evidence concerning Jesus and His existence. Something happened to these disciples that changed the Western world. Whether you choose to believe it is a matter between you and the biblical God. I understand that you once professed faith in Jesus, so I do not believe I can convince you, as a skeptic. Again, that is a matter between you and God. Nevertheless, I believe He is able to convince even the hardest of hearts.
I trust the Bible over your thoughts. It is a matter of authority. You, as a subjective human being carry very little weight in your opinions on death in my books. You discount that God can work within our hearts to lead us into the truth. I do not.