Malala and Terrorism

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.
User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4120
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Summerlander » 12 Dec 2016 17:14

Muslims acknowledge that Jesus once existed, but they believe a flunky martyr was crucified in his place instead. And they also don't believe that he was the Son of God or God incarnate---which, needless to say, contradicts Christianity. What are your views on that one?
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Pilgrim » 13 Dec 2016 03:43

And, Muslims also believe that Jesus ascended to heaven without death. The problem is the timing of their source document, 600 years after Christ, to present narrative about Jesus. Exraordinary weight against the historical documents relevant to he period, they establish based on he meeting of one man with one angel. It is not just the Christian documents that attest to the death of Jesus. Historians Josephus and Tacitus, I believe is where reference to Jesus' death is also attested. Jewish Talmud might have relevance too. (Of course, the early Christian witness is overwhelming regarding His death, but also gives the significance--the atonement.)

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Pilgrim » 13 Dec 2016 03:49

I am about half through viewing this debate between James White (Christian) and a Muslim scholar in South Africa. The topic regards whether the divinity of Christ was an early belief. It is a long view at 2+ hours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUiZ-fyPSHE&feature=share

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4120
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Summerlander » 13 Dec 2016 18:27

I'll have to check it out at some point ... :P
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4120
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Summerlander » 25 Dec 2016 23:01

Is Jesus God. I'll make this easy for you: No, he's not. :mrgreen:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Pilgrim » 26 Dec 2016 01:43

Who is Jesus?

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4120
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Summerlander » 26 Dec 2016 02:37

If he existed, he was just a man like any other. He might have been charismatic, akin to a Bronze Age Marshall Applewhite, but nothing more.

You have to understand that, as an atheist, Jesus as the divine offspring of an omnipotent supernatural being or an avatar of such does not rate highly in my list of explanatory probabilities.

If I grant that Jesus was who he said he was then I have to blindly accept that Sai BaBa is a real modern age holy man capable of performing miracles. And also that Muhammad was a prophet and the messenger of Allah.

You get my position? :mrgreen:
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Pilgrim » 26 Dec 2016 08:19

The issue is separate whether you find the biblical material credible verses what it claims.

The representation of God in physical expression is not unprecedented in the "Old Testament." The burning bush and the "angel of the LORD" are examples. Melchizedek from Gen. 14 is another (later referenced in Ps. 110 and NT Heb. 7).

Jesus' human nature was not God. A second nature, as with power to forgive sin and Lord of the Sabbath, reflected divinity.

The debate link with White regarded beliefs of the followers of Jesus. What Jesus taught and earlier followers believed is the debate. Granted, you do not believe these things. The basis for other early beliefs among Christ's followers, as claimed in Islam, is not supported by credible source documents from the period.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 4120
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Summerlander » 06 Jan 2017 18:38

Nobody has a godly nature. 'God' is a human concept---one of perfection and an ultimate goal (which, in all likelihood, is either impossible or unattainable for creatures such as us).

Take a look at this debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens:

https://youtu.be/0tYm41hb48o

William Lane Craig began the debate with the convenient fallacious statement that the question of whether or not God exists concerns religion and philosophy. First of all, the question does not concern the monotheisms at all because for Christianity, Judaism and Islam the existence of God is an unquestionable certainty.

Secondly, he claims to have chosen the medium of philosophy (bad philosophy on his part) to challenge the atheism of Christopher Hitchens. But why did he neglect to mention that the question also concerns science? If William Lane Craig had made a clean breast of his opening statement, he would have already lost. Science questions every proposition and has concluded that the evidence for a creator of the universe is absent in the world---hence the 'God Hypothesis'. Had Craig been forced to talk about the 'God Hypothesis', he would have run the risk of self-refutation against his faith-based 'God-of-the-gaps' casuistry.

Before the debate had begun, Craig's position as a Christian was already untenable and misologistic. Christopher Hitchens made it interesting for the sake of raising awareness of how ludicrous the God concept is. But all one has to do whenever someone insists that there is a god or gods is to reply, 'Where's your evidence for it?' and then explain why the theist's reasons (or unreason) don't qualify. 8-)

Craig also made the mistake of shifting the burden of proof to Hitchens. How can one disprove the alleged existence of something? It's like someone saying, 'There's a gnome living in my backgarden; you may find that he's nowhere to be found but you can't disprove him---the plants are growing! You say it's photosynthesis? Well, the gnome has magical powers and summons the rain---you don't know enough about meteorology to assert that it doesn't require a gnome's input.'
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

User avatar
Pilgrim
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Apr 2016 10:24

Re: Malala and Terrorism

Postby Pilgrim » 15 Jan 2017 07:36

Video was off subject, but okay with me. I started this debate a month or two ago. I finished viewing it now. I like how they were civilized. Hitchens was the best of your "four horsemen" of new atheism.

Craig's approach is a bit man-centered, philosophical. I think that his philosophical presuppositions about human free will govern his approach somewhat. (He mentioned that he disagrees with Calvinism, which is simply biblical determinism.)

I do not understand your point about "science." Science has as its foremost concern the investigation into what is true (and inductive "scientific method" certainly has an important role). Some scientists must not have gotten the memo that science disproves a Creator. Beware the confidence of "consensus science," I say as before.

"Burden of proof".....okay, it is a technicality here for determining "winner." It does not really matter to me who "wins." The concern to me is what seems true in cumulative consideration.

Hitchens simple statement that religion is man-made was not helpful in persuading Christians. Why? Because reason and objective assessment can be made of Scriptures, which inquiry supports a the thesis for redemptive plan by God. The corroboration of the New Testament is by constant appeal in accordance to "as it was written."

I had mentioned prophetic, messianic writings on the God-debate thread. Daniel 9 for example....
Verses 25-26

"Know and understand this: From the time the decree is issued to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Messiah, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

(62+7) x 7 = 483 (mathematical science). This is the number of years prophesied until the fulfillment by Messiah. The decree for city rebuilding and fortification is presented in Neh. 2, and happened in the twentieth year of Artaxeres. Even if my assumption is wrong that this decree marks the beginning of the 483 years (lunar), the event of Messiah still marked for after and before said events.

Below is an excerpt from The Coming Prince, 1895, by Sir Robert Anderson, an intelligence officer of London. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Anderson_(Scotland_Yard_official)
"The Julian date of that 10th Nisan was Sunday the 6th April, A.D. 32. What then was the length of the period intervening between the issuing of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the public advent of 'Messiah the Prince,' -- between the 14th March, B.C. 445, and the 6th April, A.D. 32? THE INTERVAL CONTAINED EXACTLY AND TO THE VERY DAY 173,880 DAYS, OR SEVEN TIMES SIXTY-NINE PROPHETIC YEARS OF 360 DAYS, the first sixty-nine weeks of Gabriel's prophecy."

I have not personally considered the claim of 'exact day'. At the least, the prophecy is corroborative information. The precise nature and actual time given, I find difficult to dismiss as yet another coincidence. The funny thing too is that the challenge to authorship of Daniel by higher critics is of no concern as to whether the prediction subsequently came to pass.


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 24/7/365 and 3 guests