What it means to be a disciple of Jesus

Now that the christian semantic circus has started again, as usual to dampen the effect of opposition, I would like to return to the salesman's aspect of this thread, by including a little allegory from REAL life and thus adding to the general flow of linguistic excess.

Granny and her grandson Ed Ucated (who is a carmechanic) is out bying a new car for her, and she has, amongst all car-dealers, chosen 'Honest Joe', because he "talks so nicely".

After looking at a car and having heard Honest Joe's praises of it, Granny and her grandson confer:



Granny: "That was a nice car, I'm rather interested in it"

Ed: "Granny, you DID notice it has no wheels, didn't you?"



Granny: "Yes, but he said ......."

Ed: "No, it's NOT a hoovercraft, and if put on water it'll sink like a stone"



Granny: "And then there was this about, that I don't have to drive it myself, when I asked about why the steering wheel is missing"

Ed: "There is NO central control driving peoples' cars for them with invisible rays, Granny"



Granny: "And he said, that this type of cars have been around for 2.000 years, and that this should be a sign of quality".

Ed: "They haven't changed the construction since the first model, and the idea of 5 miles a gallon for carrying around what's practically a tank weighting 2½ tons isn't realistic these days. Not to mention the handcrank starting. And did you notice the part of the manual, where there are voodoo-instructions in case of problems?".



Granny: "And he said it's very safe"

Ed: "(Sigh). Yes Granny, that's because they usually only manage to drive 50 yards before needing another visit to the workshop"



Granny: "Come to think of it, I actually like public transportation as supplied by authorities independent of salesmen"

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["A very long winded response to a straight forward question. You would make a good politician Bogomil."]

That was not a straight question, and my talent for politics are irrelevant.

Quote: ["So in a nutshell your answer is yes (but in a roundabout way)?"]

My answer is, that your initial question (from the perspective of Big Banging) is nonsense, and it's impossible to answer nonsense-questions.

Did matter always exist?

How is the above question a nonsense question?

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["A very long winded response to a straight forward question. You would make a good politician Bogomil."]

That was not a straight question, and my talent for politics are irrelevant.

Quote: ["So in a nutshell your answer is yes (but in a roundabout way)?"]

My answer is, that your initial question (from the perspective of Big Banging) is nonsense, and it's impossible to answer nonsense-questions.

Did matter always exist?

How is the above question a nonsense question?

Because 'always' in a context with Big Banging is meaningless. I believed you knew at least that much.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["A very long winded response to a straight forward question. You would make a good politician Bogomil."]

That was not a straight question, and my talent for politics are irrelevant.

Quote: ["So in a nutshell your answer is yes (but in a roundabout way)?"]

My answer is, that your initial question (from the perspective of Big Banging) is nonsense, and it's impossible to answer nonsense-questions.

Did matter always exist?

How is the above question a nonsense question?

Because 'always' in a context with Big Banging is meaningless. I believed you knew at least that much.

The Big Banging is meaningless, it's not the question that is at fault here.


Once again, do you believe that matter always existed (in some form)?

reply to post by XplanetX


You wrote:

["The Big Banging is meaningless, it's not the question that is at fault here."]

a/ I take it, that we agree, that you are not in a position to dictate my choice of reference-frame. So....

b/ You have arrived to the conclusion, that choice of methodology and procedure (as a canvass for questions and answers) gives 'meaning' to question/answers. Which is why you now have removed your interest to the theory of the Big Bang.

c/ From a logical position Big Banging has a big truth/reality probability.

d/ In the theory of Big Banging there is no 'always'.

If you return to page one, you will see, that it was YOU making an invitation to.....

Quote: ["play a game of logic."]

which I have done, and where I have presented a facet of logic (the theory of the Big Bang), which you now deny. (If you want to use zero-point physics instead, it's fine with me).

So either you are still "playing games", but have forgotten your initial inclusion of logic, or you have some hitherho unknown/unpresented 'logic' you refer to (as a competitor to standard logic), which has its own systematic methodology and by which some cosmogony/cosmology has been formed.

Can you please demonstrate this alternative 'logic'?

I regret, that this has become rather off-topic, but you started this direction yourself.

reply to post by bogomil

Doesn't seem to be much grist for the mill, here.
I hope you don't get too bored with this forum since there seems to be a bit of a lack of intellectual discourse going on here of late.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["The Big Banging is meaningless, it's not the question that is at fault here."]

a/ I take it, that we agree, that you are not in a position to dictate my choice of reference-frame. So....

b/ You have arrived to the conclusion, that choice of methodology and procedure (as a canvass for questions and answers) gives 'meaning' to question/answers. Which is why you now have removed your interest to the theory of the Big Bang.

c/ From a logical position Big Banging has a big truth/reality probability.

d/ In the theory of Big Banging there is no 'always'.

If you return to page one, you will see, that it was YOU making an invitation to.....

Quote: ["play a game of logic."]

which I have done, and where I have presented a facet of logic (the theory of the Big Bang), which you now deny. (If you want to use zero-point physics instead, it's fine with me).

So either you are still "playing games", but have forgotten your initial inclusion of logic, or you have some hitherho unknown/unpresented 'logic' you refer to (as a competitor to standard logic), which has its own systematic methodology and by which some cosmogony/cosmology has been formed.

Can you please demonstrate this alternative 'logic'?

I regret, that this has become rather off-topic, but you started this direction yourself.

No 'always' in the big bang theory?

So you believe in a theory of which nothing is definite?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bogomil

 

Doesn't seem to be much grist for the mill, here.
I hope you don't get too bored with this forum since there seems to be a bit of a lack of intellectual discourse going on here of late.

I'll admit, that there are days, when it can be frustrating to repeat that round wheels actually are better than square ones, even if square-wheel-doctrinalism has a battery of assumptions piled on assumptions piled on their doctrines.

But being a non-theist doesn't mean I'm an anti-theist. And (part-time) being intellectual doesn't mean I'm an intellectual snob. And the occasional street-theater doesn't bother me. It's the 'cleverness' of the missionary types, which is the nuisance.

When the invasive possibilities of circular arguments, hijacked science/logic and semantic twistings are used up, the mindgames, character-attacks and similar possible evasive maneuvers take over, and THAT is a waste of time.

This thread started quite commercially by pushing the thread author's personal version of christianity. When I correspondingly took the role of inquiring consumer upon myself, the thread-topic punctured like a bubble and we are, on the author's initiative now messing around in an area, which he clearly has practically zero knowledge of and which will lead nowhere without his becoming acquainted with it.

I appreciate your comment to me, and as on similar former occasions, I can only return the implied decent communication. YOUR type of christianity and YOUR attitudes are both legitimate, 'respectable' and presented in such a way that only in a black/white opposition (from the other end of the spectrum) would there be any reason to argue with you apart from a polite, 'academic' position.

You are imo genuinely 'offering', not pushing. And as much as I'm opposing the thread-author's pushing, I'm supporting your offering on general principles (and in spite of not sharing your beliefs).

reply to post by XplanetX


You wrote:

["No 'always' in the big bang theory?"]

I take the question to be rhetorical, as I have already answered it a couple of times. But if you insist: There is no 'always' in the Big Bang theory.

Quote: ["So you believe in a theory of which nothing is definite?"]

A 'definite nothing' is a theist CONCEPT, and I don't operate with theist concepts axiomatically (~as 'given').

This concept belongs in the category of claims, which together with similar theist claims rationally best are classified as 'agnostic'.

I can from my own rational metaphysical position analyse 'nothing' though, which has very little to do with doctrinal theism.

I apologize for saying so, but all this should be fairly obvious.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["No 'always' in the big bang theory?"]

I take the question to be rhetorical, as I have already answered it a couple of times. But if you insist: There is no 'always' in the Big Bang theory.

Quote: ["So you believe in a theory of which nothing is definite?"]

A 'definite nothing' is a theist CONCEPT, and I don't operate with theist concepts axiomatically (~as 'given').

This concept belongs in the category of claims, which together with similar theist claims rationally best are classified as 'agnostic'.

I can from my own rational metaphysical position analyse 'nothing' though, which has very little to do with doctrinal theism.

I apologize for saying so, but all this should be fairly obvious.

You believe in a wishy washy theory that has no 'definites' and never will.

I believe the bible contains definite answers and Jesus certianly taught 'absolutes'.


JN 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."


If I am wrong then I may be at the mercy of the spaghetti monster or maybe I will just become worm food. If you are wrong then you will be at the mercy of the living God.


JN 12:48 "There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

reply to post by XplanetX


You wrote:

["You believe in a wishy washy theory that has no 'definites' and never will."]

It has from a logical position a big truth-probability, the wishy-washiness is only concerning the cutting-edge part of it and the lacking 'definites' only in the context of this cutting edge.

Against this you put your.....

Quote: [" I believe the bible contains definite answers and Jesus certianly taught 'absolutes'."]

Which is a declaration of faith. What happened to the 'logical game' challenge? What happened to YOUR possible presentation of YOUR 'logic'?

You are now back to the basic faith vs fact, and eventually faith vs faith. Why the detour?

Quote: ["If I am wrong then I may be at the mercy of the spaghetti monster or maybe I will just become worm food. If you are wrong then you will be at the mercy of the living God."]

True. So what justifies your pushy and interfering attitudes?

On my part I'm protecting your right to have personal, subjective choices on egalitarian principles. Do you have any problems with that, or don't you understand what 'egalitarian principles' mean and imply? (This question has both an academic and social dimension).

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["You believe in a wishy washy theory that has no 'definites' and never will."]

It has from a logical position a big truth-probability, the wishy-washiness is only concerning the cutting-edge part of it and the lacking 'definites' only in the context of this cutting edge.

Against this you put your.....

Quote: [" I believe the bible contains definite answers and Jesus certianly taught 'absolutes'."]

Which is a declaration of faith. What happened to the 'logical game' challenge? What happened to YOUR possible presentation of YOUR 'logic'?

You are now back to the basic faith vs fact, and eventually faith vs faith. Why the detour?

Quote: ["If I am wrong then I may be at the mercy of the spaghetti monster or maybe I will just become worm food. If you are wrong then you will be at the mercy of the living God."]

True. So what justifies your pushy and interfering attitudes?

On my part I'm protecting your right to have personal, subjective choices on egalitarian principles. Do you have any problems with that, or don't you understand what 'egalitarian principles' mean and imply? (This question has both an academic and social dimension).

First of all I just want to say that whenever I try to comprehend 'the beginning' my mind is blown away by the entire concept.

It is impossible for us to have an infinite past, so we therefore have a 'definite' beginning. Unless you want to try and argue against this point using a strange type of logic, of which there is no doubt that you will try.

The clock started ticking as soon as God first created matter. God existed before time began. He is an infinite being composed of Spirit (not a physical being). Just as we cannot see a thought with our own eyes, the invisible God cannot be seen. He always Was as he existed before time began, the great 'I AM'. It is hard for us humans to comprehend anything outside the paradigm of a universe with a timeline, because that is all we have known while we are inside our material bodies.

I believe that God did reveal his Spirit inside the flesh of Jesus about 2000 years ago so that we could understand his character more fully (this is the faith part).

We can have an infinite future unless God destroys us and/or the universe including the spiritual realms, but we cannot have an infinite past. It is only logical.

'God' or 'Creator' are interchangeable in what I have written, if you find the use of 'God' distasteful.


Bogomil, What started the Big Bang?

reply to post by XplanetX


You wrote:

["First of all I just want to say that whenever I try to comprehend 'the beginning' my mind is blown away by the entire concept."]

Many people have speculations on the whole scenario/concept without having a compulsion to push their preferred model as an absolute truth.

Quote: ["It is impossible for us to have an infinite past, so we therefore have a 'definite' beginning."]

'Infinite' is your inclusion into your premises. Personally I don't find it difficult to ignore meaningless premises or questions.

Quote: ["Unless you want to try and argue against this point using a strange type of logic, of which there is no doubt that you will try."]

Standard logic ~ 'strange'?

Quote: [" The clock started ticking as soon as God first created matter."]

Alternative just when matter (or more precisely space-time) manifested.

Quote: ["God existed before time began."]

Only according to your mythological manual.

Quote: ["He is an infinite being composed of Spirit (not a physical being)."]

Assumed so.

Quote: ["Just as we cannot see a thought with our own eyes, the invisible God cannot be seen."]

Neither can the flying spaghetti monster. And so....?

Quote: ["He always Was as he existed before time began, the great 'I AM'."]

You already said that once in this post; twice doesn't make the claim more 'true'.

Quote: ["It is hard for us humans to comprehend anything outside the paradigm of a universe with a timeline, because that is all we have known while we are inside our material bodies."]

True. But this doesn't justify filling the gaps with mythological speculations.

Quote: ["I believe that God did reveal his Spirit inside the flesh of Jesus about 2000 years ago so that we could understand his character more fully (this is the faith part)."]

As you should know by now, I have no objections to 'faith parts'. I have objections to pushy faith parts making elitist claims.

Quote: [" We can have an infinite future unless God destroys us and/or the universe including the spiritual realms, but we cannot have an infinite past. It is only logical."]

Nope, no logic....until 'infinite past' is made a reasonable assumption. Fourth time you make this claim.

Quote: ["'God' or 'Creator' are interchangeable in what I have written, if you find the use of 'God' distasteful."]

I find 'creator' as distasteful as 'god' for several reasons.

Quote: ["Bogomil, What started the Big Bang?"]

This question is ofcourse....on the momentary assumption, that the Big Bang is real.

How should I know of there is any 'starter' and what it is? I'm seeking answers on the available information/methodologies, not fabricating premature answers.

That you have premature circular answers based on your mythology is your business, until you start pushing these answers.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX

 

You wrote:

["First of all I just want to say that whenever I try to comprehend 'the beginning' my mind is blown away by the entire concept."]

Many people have speculations on the whole scenario/concept without having a compulsion to push their preferred model as an absolute truth.

Quote: ["It is impossible for us to have an infinite past, so we therefore have a 'definite' beginning."]

'Infinite' is your inclusion into your premises. Personally I don't find it difficult to ignore meaningless premises or questions.

Quote: ["Unless you want to try and argue against this point using a strange type of logic, of which there is no doubt that you will try."]

Standard logic ~ 'strange'?

Quote: [" The clock started ticking as soon as God first created matter."]

Alternative just when matter (or more precisely space-time) manifested.

Quote: ["God existed before time began."]

Only according to your mythological manual.

Quote: ["He is an infinite being composed of Spirit (not a physical being)."]

Assumed so.

Quote: ["Just as we cannot see a thought with our own eyes, the invisible God cannot be seen."]

Neither can the flying spaghetti monster. And so....?

Quote: ["He always Was as he existed before time began, the great 'I AM'."]

You already said that once in this post; twice doesn't make the claim more 'true'.

Quote: ["It is hard for us humans to comprehend anything outside the paradigm of a universe with a timeline, because that is all we have known while we are inside our material bodies."]

True. But this doesn't justify filling the gaps with mythological speculations.

Quote: ["I believe that God did reveal his Spirit inside the flesh of Jesus about 2000 years ago so that we could understand his character more fully (this is the faith part)."]

As you should know by now, I have no objections to 'faith parts'. I have objections to pushy faith parts making elitist claims.

Quote: [" We can have an infinite future unless God destroys us and/or the universe including the spiritual realms, but we cannot have an infinite past. It is only logical."]

Nope, no logic....until 'infinite past' is made a reasonable assumption. Fourth time you make this claim.

Quote: ["'God' or 'Creator' are interchangeable in what I have written, if you find the use of 'God' distasteful."]

I find 'creator' as distasteful as 'god' for several reasons.

Quote: ["Bogomil, What started the Big Bang?"]

This question is ofcourse....on the momentary assumption, that the Big Bang is real.

How should I know of there is any 'starter' and what it is? I'm seeking answers on the available information/methodologies, not fabricating premature answers.

That you have premature circular answers based on your mythology is your business, until you start pushing these answers.

edit on 17-9-2011 by bogomil because: dictionary imprecision

Based on your world view and philosophy it seems that everything is fluid and nothing is certain.

I don't need to use the word 'infinite' as a premises for my argument to be logical.

Forget the word 'infinite', was there a definite beginning?

I fear that I may be wasting my time asking this question because you will claim that a question using the word 'beginning' is faulty.

reply to post by XplanetX


You wrote:

["Based on your world view and philosophy it seems that everything is fluid and nothing is certain."]

There is the option of 'relative realities'.

Quote: ["I don't need to use the word 'infinite' as a premises for my argument to be logical. Forget the word 'infinite', was there a definite beginning?"]

There is, according to Big Bang theory, an observable cosmological beginning (try to avoid the misconception of what 'observable' means is science).

Quote: ["I fear that I may be wasting my time asking this question because you will claim that a question using the word 'beginning' is faulty."]

In the beginning, there was a beginning of things we can 'know'. It's not so hard.

There are many stories of different imagined 'beginnings' before the observable beginning. They only count from individualistic faith positions.

reply to post by bogomil




Okay, now we are getting somewhere.

From a hard scientific point of view it certainly appears that there is a beginning. We can at least both agree on this.

It would appear that we come to blows concerning what happened before the beginning, or how the beginning commenced. This is where we diverge and I go into 'theist' territory and you go to your spaghetti monster / Big Bang.

There is one very well known historical figure that claims to be able to shed some light on the 'unknown', I believe his claims while you believe otherwise.

Originally posted by XplanetX
reply to post by bogomil

 

Okay, now we are getting somewhere.

From a hard scientific point of view it certainly appears that there is a beginning. We can at least both agree on this.

It would appear that we come to blows concerning what happened before the beginning, or how the beginning commenced. This is where we diverge and I go into 'theist' territory and you go to your spaghetti monster / Big Bang.

There is one very well known historical figure that claims to be able to shed some light on the 'unknown', I believe his claims while you believe otherwise.

How to say this without being insulting.

But honestly,...... I on my part, am not "getting anywhere". This is a trite repetition of identical 'repartee-threads/posts' I've must have hundreds of by now.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by XplanetX
reply to post by bogomil

 

Okay, now we are getting somewhere.

From a hard scientific point of view it certainly appears that there is a beginning. We can at least both agree on this.

It would appear that we come to blows concerning what happened before the beginning, or how the beginning commenced. This is where we diverge and I go into 'theist' territory and you go to your spaghetti monster / Big Bang.

There is one very well known historical figure that claims to be able to shed some light on the 'unknown', I believe his claims while you believe otherwise.

How to say this without being insulting.

But honestly,...... I on my part, am not "getting anywhere". This is a trite repetition of identical 'repartee-threads/posts' I've must have hundreds of by now.

A difference of opinion can be frustrating for some.

And you said that I was the 'pushy' one?

Tsk, tsk.

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by XplanetX
reply to post by bogomil

 

Okay, now we are getting somewhere.

From a hard scientific point of view it certainly appears that there is a beginning. We can at least both agree on this.

It would appear that we come to blows concerning what happened before the beginning, or how the beginning commenced. This is where we diverge and I go into 'theist' territory and you go to your spaghetti monster / Big Bang.

There is one very well known historical figure that claims to be able to shed some light on the 'unknown', I believe his claims while you believe otherwise.

How to say this without being insulting.

But honestly,...... I on my part, am not "getting anywhere". This is a trite repetition of identical 'repartee-threads/posts' I've must have hundreds of by now.

A difference of opinion can be frustrating for some.

And you said that I was the 'pushy' one?

Tsk, tsk.

I'm even less 'getting anywhere' by this, and will not waste more time on such comments.

What a moving vid OP. Thanks for sharing this : It really clicked in my heart /made me leap in my spirit!
Jesus paid it all, all to him we owe....sin had left a crimson stain, but praise His Name, He washes white as snow! ...
The Christian life can be a struggle at times, for we want to live in the flesh oft...but thank God He will lose none that have been given him! Praise God!
Yes, we are bought with a price: We, Christians, are no longer our own ... and are to live for Him -not to gain our salvation but because He first loved us...and we HAVE salvation.

Originally posted by XplanetX

reply to post by XplanetX

 

I fear that I may be wasting my time asking this question because you will claim that a question using the word 'beginning' is faulty.

Hmm...now why is this verse popping into my mind?
Mat 7:6 " Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, ....".

"There are many that have beams in their eyes, and yet do not consider it. They are under the guilt and dominion of very great sins, and yet are not aware of it, but justify themselves, as if they needed no repentance nor reformation; it is as strange that a man can be in such a sinful, miserable condition, and not be aware of it, as that a man should have a beam in his eye, and not consider it; but the god of this world so artfully blinds their minds, that notwithstanding, with great assurance, they say, We see." E-sword- Henry

Throw a pearl to a swine, and he will resent it, as if you threw a stone at him.


Edit to add: I forgot to say, well done Xplanet! S& F!