Christians are delusional!

[Yebra]

You're right, people can be stupid. Some will even repeatedly and blatantly violate rules and label an entire religious group as delusional and stupid, despite being advised against it.

Ignoring the wildly provocative comments that lead to it, I have an issue with some of that.

I don't believe in God, therefore to me ALL religious groups are plainly delusional. Given the wild differences between the various religions, it's fairly safe to say that by anyone's perspective most of humanity is delusional and I like to think that it's every group except the one I'm in. I feel better about this because I don't chose to see the ability to believe impossible things as a virtue.

Is that offensive?

[Sibyl]

Well, actually, the "inflammatory language" is an allusion to a http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.ht ... ious List.

[Sibyl]

Could someone please tell me how to use the URL button on the posting form to make the url disappear under one or more words, as a clickable link? That was what I was trying to do with my previous post in the thread, to put the url http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html under the words "new book", but it didn't work. Using the smilies is easy , but the link part doesn't seem to be so intuitive. I'd also like to know how to post an image, which the buttons seem to show that I can. Also I've been trying several methods and failing to get an avatar on my posts. I have a properly sized gif on my desktop (and the almost/same one on the web, but it's too big, I had to modify it), but I can't seem to get it to the website.

[Rei]

[url =http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html under the words "new book"]new book[/ url]

Minus the spaces, so words here

[fawkes]

If you look at the top, when your mouse hovers over the url button, it will give you instructions.

[Sibyl]

A tenet of Christianity is that the son of God, Jesus Christ, died, and subsequently came back to life. I think that all reasonable people would say that a person can not die and then be brought back to life. It's just not possible. And it's well known that the church has always said that Jesus was completely human, so don't argue the "he was DIVINE" line.

What all this means is that a true, believing Christian would believe in an impossibilty, namely that the "son of God" came back from the dead. It's just crazy. Pure delusion.

Oh, I can believe six impossible things before breakfast!

1Cr 1:22-24 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

But actually, all miracles are impossible, that's why they're miracles. If impossibility was a barrier, there would be no Christians. God invented the natural laws, and He isn't bound by them. And to Christians (except JWs and Unitarians, maybe a few other types) Jesus Christ is God, not just "son of God", though he's that too, and also "Son of Man". He's the second person of the Trinity, God the Son. And his Resurrection is the sign to us that we also can be Resurrected, at the Last Day.

[Sibyl]

Contrary to popular belief, Jesus came back as a spirit.

"Why, even Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, that he might lead you to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit."-1 Peter 1:23

and

"Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh, was declared righteous in spirit, appeared to angels, was preached about among nations, was believed upon in the world, was received up in glory."-1 Timothy 3:16

and

"It is even so written: “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam [Jesus] became a life-giving spirit."-1 Corinthians 15:45

Some have used certain Scriptures to refute this belief so I present a counter-argument.

"It is true that Jesus appeared in physical form to his disciples after his resurrection. But on certain occasions, why did they not at first recognize him? (Luke 24:15-32; John 20:14-16) On one occasion, for the benefit of Thomas, Jesus appeared with the physical evidence of nail prints in his hands and a spear wound in his side. But how was it possible on that occasion for him suddenly to appear in their midst even though the doors were locked? (John 20:26, 27) Jesus evidently materialized bodies on these occasions, as angels had done in the past when appearing to humans."-from the book, Reasoning on the Scriptures published by Jehovah's Witnesses (yes, Nick, it's from the Watchtower Society )

Plus, if Christ gave his perfect body and blood for all of us and then took it back at his resurrection, he took back the payment for our sins and therefore our sins were not forgiven. When you give someone the payment for a certain debt, if you take it back then the debt is not paid.

Kind of depends on what you mean by "popular belief". The Creeds are the basic summary of Christianity, and both the Nicene and the Apostles say "We believe in the Resurrection of the body"--and that isn't just Christ's body, it's ours too, and also the Body of Christ, the Church. _That_ is popular belief for Christianity, the whole Invisible Church.

We are taught that the Resurrection Body will be different than the present one (I had a priest who used to say "When I get my Resurrection Body, it's going to be _thin_!), and will look the way we want it to, thus people who knew Jesus not recognizing him, and Jesus could do miracles more important than walking through locked doors even _before_ he was resurrected. But it'll still be flesh (or again be flesh), as Thomas testified when he put his hand in the wound in Jesus' side.

Different theologies and Christian denominations have somewhat different definitions for the words "Spirit" and "Soul", but "just spirits" don't eat fish. That takes teeth.

And Christ did do the dying in agony. He didn't take _that_ back. It happened, whether or not he was resurrected. And I do believe that he was.

[Sibyl]

Just a couple of things in this post, because I keep reading back through the thread and galloping off madly in all directions, so have to limit it.

First, thank you, blueantoidgirl and Rei: I'll get a chance to check that out right away!

On miracles--I misstated myself a little while ago--a miracle doesn't _have_ to be impossible, improbable is quite enough, and any time that God does something that wouldn't otherwise have happened, that's a miracle. I've experienced a couple of small ones myself, that are not really provable to anyone else, that I know in my own mind were too improbable to have happened naturally.

Then, on the Bible translations that lyons keeps quoting, those are the JW's denominationally specific New World Translation. It isn't very well respected by Greek scholars, and some of the differences that are very important to JW doctrine are quite notorious, like the first verse of John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", which the NW translates "and the Word was _a_ God" (very important, Trinitarianly) --and Koine Greek _has_ no indefinite article. Any such quotes that Lyons does can be easily checked with the King James Version or the modern English New Revised Standard Version

[Sibyl]

Another fun phrase that seems relevant:

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a moron."

Irony is really hard to do in e-mail (or board posts)

A really good way to say this without insulting other people who don't think about it carefully is to use a word from another e-community of which I'm a part: AFIK, it was developed in that one. It's to talk about TEAPOTs,
Those
Evil
Awful
People
Over
There
When you use that, you're reflexively pointing at yourself, at your own human tendency to, at least mildly, demonize the people in the other group, while acknowledging that it's a normal human thing to do, and _at the same time_ avoiding insulting them, especially when you're saying that they're wrong (and you, or I, might also be mistaken, but we do believe that we aren't, or we wouldn't be taking the position that we do.) Who could get insulted at a word like "TEAPOT", even when they understand the acronym and what it's about ?

Oh, my! This thread does have so much meat for discussion in it! I do hope there isn't a rule about posting too many times in one thread, because I have too many thoughts about it, that go in too many different directions, to go into just one, or even a few posts. I also hope it doesn't get closed. I, for one, am trying very hard not to insult anybody.

[lyons24000]

Then, on the Bible translations that lyons keeps quoting, those are the JW's denominationally specific New World Translation. It isn't very well respected by Greek scholars, and some of the differences that are very important to JW doctrine are quite notorious, like the first verse of John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", which the NW translates "and the Word was _a_ God" (very important, Trinitarianly) --and Koine Greek _has_ no indefinite article. Any such quotes that Lyons does can be easily checked with the King James Version or the modern English New Revised Standard Version

What about John 6:70?

"Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (King James Version)

What about John 8:44?

"He was a murderer from the beginning...for he is a liar." (King James Version)

What about John 10:1?

"He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. (King James Version)

Now, with these verses, I know that I have not proven that the translation is supposed to be "a god" instead of "God" but I have shown that by your logic, your perfectly translated King James Version makes the same "mistakes" that the New World Translation makes because, well, there is no "a" in Koine Greek. The New Revised Standard Version makes that same mistake as well.

[lyons24000]

Now, Sybil, the Greek for John 1:1 is,

"En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

Literally translated that is, "In (En) the beginning (arche) was (en) the word (ho logos)."-Clause One

Notice the "ho" before "logos". That literally means, "The Word". If the word "ho" was not there it would be translated "a word".

"And (kai) the word (ho logos) was (en) with (pros) the God (ton theon)."-Clause Two

Look at "ton theon". The word "ton" also means "the" making the translation literally "God" and not "a god". If the "ton" was not there then the translation would literally be "and the word was with a god" but since the definite article "ton" is there it is translated correctly.

"And (kai) god (theos) was (en) the word (ho logos)."

Again, "ho logos" is literally translated "the Word" and how is "theos" minus the definite articles "ton" or "ho" (which are different forms of the same word) translated?

"Theos" without a definite article would be translated "god", literally. Yet, when put into an English sentence then you would have to add an "a".

Think of it like this. The definite article before any word is like putting a steel wall in front of the word. No other word can be attached to the front of that word where the definite article is present. Yet, when no definite article is present then an indefinite article, when translated to other languages, must be added. Just like in John 6:70, John 8:44, and John 10:1. The fact that these translators did not translate John 1:1 the way they knew Greek grammar required but the way they saw it is a form of bias!

And what you said "It isn't very well respected by Greek scholars" is most likely something you read on the internet on a Christian apologetic website like CARM or something. And the way you explained "there is no indefinite article" reeks of Christian apologetics. And how do I know that? Because you are not the first person that has ever used that sentence against me. I've had plenty of others use it, too. And then I had to proceed to explain what I've just gotten through explaining.

Just three Greek scholars who agree with what I've just written are Dr. Karl Rahner, Dr. Jason BeDuhn, and Dr. Joseph Thayer. They are all Greek scholars and Dr. BeDuhn is an atheist. He's unbiased in the way he feels the text should be translated.

In fact, Dr. BeDuhn wrote a book "Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament". In the book, BeDuhn looked at the most controversial verses in the NWT and other Bibles. The verses he focused on were, Philippians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:15-20, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, John 8:58, and John 1:1. When he is finished he finds the New World Translation to be the most accurate in how they translate these verses. (John 8:58 is actually most accurate in The Living Bible with the New World Translation coming in second.

One of the least accurate (if not the least accurate) was the New International Version. I can't remember what place it came in because I read the book about six months ago.

The versions he looked at were:

1. King James Version
2. New Revised Standard Version
3. New International Version
4. New American Bible-Catholic Translation
5. New American Standard Bible
6. The Amplified Bible
7. The Living Bible
8. Today's English Version
9. New World Translation-Jehovah's Witness Translation

The NWT and the NAB were No. 1 and No. 2 respectively in translation accuracy.

Now, I hope that is laid to rest.

[Sibyl]

And what you said "It isn't very well respected by Greek scholars" is most likely something you read on the internet on a Christian apologetic website like CARM or something. And the way you explained "there is no indefinite article" reeks of Christian apologetics. And how do I know that? Because you are not the first person that has ever used that sentence against me. I've had plenty of others use it, too. And then I had to proceed to explain what I've just gotten through explaining.
......
Now, I hope that is laid to rest.

The Greek and Greek scholar part is something I'll have to do more research on before getting back to you, and I'm certainly no authority or scholar on that myself, and my son-in-law and daughter have only had one and two years of Koine respectively. It'll take some time.

However, what I said was what I had read on paper and "knew", before the internet existed, and I'm probably not the first person who's pointed it out to you: it's not original with me. I admit that I do a lot of research on the web now, and because of the non-accountable nature of web publication, need to double and triple-check things, especially things from personal sites and blogs, as to the reputation and nature of the authority of the people I quote. One great advantage the web libraries have is that Fathers like Jerome don't change or totally disappear, whether you paste from a website or copy by typing from paper, and nor do the older Christian sources that are out of copyright, and they had their accountability years ago.

You do seem to have a "sniff" in your "voice" when you speak of Christian Apologetics, especially on the internet. That's simply a subject devoted to explaining what it's about, to helping people find _why_ they believe what they believe. It has very little to do with Anti-Jehovah's-Witness Propaganda, nor does it have much to do with the related English word "apology". There are large sections of Christian Apologetics books in every Christian bookstore. It's not an apology, it's an explanation.

I'd also like to point out to others that I'm _not_ trying to set myself up as any authority on what JWs believe, though I have taken their "course" at home, given by a local minister, and have a copy of the NWT in my bookshelf, with other translations (and other Watchtower publications)(and a _lot_ of Christian publications of many varieties, including two copies of the Book of Mormon, one published in Utah by the LDS, another closer to my home by the RLDS). I'm not a member. What I'm discussing here is the language and text translation of the received New Testament books, which are the common heritage of all Christians.

[lyons24000]

I need to apologize for my tone in my previous post. I was not meaning to sound like a jerk. It's just that when the same "mistake" and explanation for why it is a mistake is thrown out there and it's wrong and each time I have to explain it again, each time I get a little bit more irritated.

So again, I must apologize.

[Sibyl]

I need to apologize for my tone in my previous post. I was not meaning to sound like a jerk. It's just that when the same "mistake" and explanation for why it is a mistake is thrown out there and it's wrong and each time I have to explain it again, each time I get a little bit more irritated.

So again, I must apologize.

Thank you, Lyons. I don't really feel that you owed me an apology, and I didn't think that you sounded like a jerk--you sounded exactly like someone who's been over the same ground too many times! I've been over some of those grounds myself, different places.

But I do appreciate the thought to do it. Thank you.

Love in Christ,

[Sibyl]

I'm talking about what most people believe. My perception is that most Christians DO believe in a corporal resurrection, but I may be wrong (hence the poll).

Well....
I guess "most Christians" would be Roman Catholics, other sorts of Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox: I suppose adding those groups together would make up a majority, and then many Protestants, though I'm not sure how many, also use the Creeds, and many who don't still recognize the four classic ones as the summary of Christian faith.

This is the Nicene Creed, in the translation that the Episcopal Church uses, which every congregation recites in unison almost every Sunday at Eucharist (what other Churches would call a Communion Service). The Catholics use it too, maybe a slightly different translation. The Orthodox don't use the clause "and the Son" in "proceeds from the Father and the Son", otherwise theirs is the same, in different languages or translations. It comes from the _very_ early Church. A slightly shorter version, called the Apostles' Creed, is used also, and is supposed to be even older, though probably the tradition that each of the twelve Apostles contributed one line to it is apocryphal. But if anyone wants to know the most orthodox, most important points of what Christians believe, this is it:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heavan
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[Sibyl]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the impossible is actually possible.

Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

[Yebra]

Well, actually, the "inflammatory language" is an allusion to a [url]http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html[url]

I'm sorry Sibyl, but I can't make heads-or-tails of this article. I'm just going to take this paragraph:

"Dawkins holds that the existence or non-existence of God is a scientific hypothesis which is open to rational demonstration. Christianity teaches that to claim that there is a God must be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case with the Loch Ness monster. This is not to say that religious people believe in a black hole, because they also consider that God has revealed himself: not, as Dawkins thinks, in the guise of a cosmic manufacturer even smarter than Dawkins himself (the New Testament has next to nothing to say about God as Creator), but for Christians at least, in the form of a reviled and murdered political criminal. The Jews of the so-called Old Testament had faith in God, but this does not mean that after debating the matter at a number of international conferences they decided to endorse the scientific hypothesis that there existed a supreme architect of the universe – even though, as Genesis reveals, they were of this opinion. They had faith in God in the sense that I have faith in you. They may well have been mistaken in their view; but they were not mistaken because their scientific hypothesis was unsound."

I've read enough Dawkins to know that he can get a little caught up in his arguments, but that still doesn't excuse how little sense this makes.

As far as I can see, Dawkins can't understand why people can believe irrational and contradictory concepts. This is either explained by a more in-depth look at theology that shows that it's more self-consistent and the example is wrong or that the contradiction is ok because it's supposed to be that way. Have I got the gist? Or does the fact the above paragraph means nothing to me mean the concept will forever elude me.

[Sibyl]

Well, actually, the "inflammatory language" is an allusion to a new book [url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html]"The God Delusion"[url\]

I'm sorry Sibyl, but I can't make heads-or-tails of this article. I'm just going to take this paragraph:

"Dawkins holds that the existence or non-existence of God is a scientific hypothesis which is open to rational demonstration. Christianity teaches that to claim that there is a God must be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case with the Loch Ness monster. This is not to say that religious people believe in a black hole, because they also consider that God has revealed himself: not, as Dawkins thinks, in the guise of a cosmic manufacturer even smarter than Dawkins himself (the New Testament has next to nothing to say about God as Creator), but for Christians at least, in the form of a reviled and murdered political criminal. The Jews of the so-called Old Testament had faith in God, but this does not mean that after debating the matter at a number of international conferences they decided to endorse the scientific hypothesis that there existed a supreme architect of the universe – even though, as Genesis reveals, they were of this opinion. They had faith in God in the sense that I have faith in you. They may well have been mistaken in their view; but they were not mistaken because their scientific hypothesis was unsound."

I've read enough Dawkins to know that he can get a little caught up in his arguments, but that still doesn't excuse how little sense this makes.

As far as I can see, Dawkins can't understand why people can believe irrational and contradictory concepts. This is either explained by a more in-depth look at theology that shows that it's more self-consistent and the example is wrong or that the contradiction is ok because it's supposed to be that way. Have I got the gist? Or does the fact the above paragraph means nothing to me mean the concept will forever elude me.

Well, maybe the reviewer got a little too carried away with his own cleverness. I happened to post that URL, because Eriador was in trouble about an "inflammatory word" in his original question, "delusion", and having been watching the discussion of the book on my other List, I realized that it was an allusion, and was not at all inflamed, even though I'm a serious Christian. I don't know why he didn't use the book title as a defense himself, but maybe he was likewise around the edges of other discussions of it and just "absorbed" the word without realizing where it came from. Maybe I should just have posted a URL to the book on Amazon.com, but I didn't, and I didn't want the thread to be closed, because I could see so many different things in it that I wanted to talk about.

Anyway, I think he's saying that there's _more_ to God than simple rationality. I'm no heavy-philosophy theologian, and getting into the mechanics of the Trinity gives me a headache, but he was also saying before the paragraph in question that before someone tries to write a Bertrand Russell type book debunking God, he should know what the great theologians who have worked on the rationality of God over the centuries have thought and said, and that Dawkins had not _done_ that homework. But God is Mystery, and He tells us over and over in the Bible that there's more to Him that we can figure out. "My thoughts are not your thoughts" and "To God a thousand years are as a day", and the parable of the vineyard workers that Jesus told, where those who worked an hour got the same wage as those who worked all day. Not rational, but right in God's eyes. The Mind of God is so big that human beings couldn't come close to it. Albert Einstein was one of our best, and he couldn't have designed from scratch one insect, much less _invented_ natural law, from galaxies to photons. It may take a Visionary view of Faith to see the evidence of God.

Another way to look at it might be that rationality and logic are subsets of what God is, but they aren't the whole thing, as Plane Geometry is a subset of Geometry. Someone who is very well acquainted with Plane Geometry might say that the statement that two parallel lines might meet is irrational, but he isn't thinking about Riemannian Geometry, with its different logic.

[wizzard]

Now, Sybil, the Greek for John 1:1 is,

"En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos."

Literally translated that is, "In (En) the beginning (arche) was (en) the word (ho logos)."-Clause One

Notice the "ho" before "logos". That literally means, "The Word". If the word "ho" was not there it would be translated "a word".

"And (kai) the word (ho logos) was (en) with (pros) the God (ton theon)."-Clause Two

Look at "ton theon". The word "ton" also means "the" making the translation literally "God" and not "a god". If the "ton" was not there then the translation would literally be "and the word was with a god" but since the definite article "ton" is there it is translated correctly.

"And (kai) god (theos) was (en) the word (ho logos)."

Again, "ho logos" is literally translated "the Word" and how is "theos" minus the definite articles "ton" or "ho" (which are different forms of the same word) translated?

"Theos" without a definite article would be translated "god", literally. Yet, when put into an English sentence then you would have to add an "a".

Think of it like this. The definite article before any word is like putting a steel wall in front of the word. No other word can be attached to the front of that word where the definite article is present. Yet, when no definite article is present then an indefinite article, when translated to other languages, must be added. Just like in John 6:70, John 8:44, and John 10:1. The fact that these translators did not translate John 1:1 the way they knew Greek grammar required but the way they saw it is a form of bias!

I know this was posted a little while ago, and the discussion has moved on, but I've been out of the loop for the past couple weeks, and I just had to say something about this.

In Biblical Greek (I don't know about modern Greek) the rules about the definite article are fairly different from English. When there is a predicate nominative (i.e. a sentence with the form "A is B") the predicate (B) is marked by the absence of the definite article. This is why "kai theos en ho logos" is translated "the Word was God" and not "God was the Word". This doesn't completely discredit the "a God" translation, but translating it as just "God" is perfectly legitimate, if not more likely to be what was meant.

[luminousnerd]

Miracles are things that cannot happen within the rules of this universe. There are rules in the universe, obviously, or else we would be able to walk on water any time we wanted to. But since there are rules, when Jesus did it, it was a miracle. It was not doing the impossible, since obviously it was possible or it couldn't have happened. It was doing what could not happen within the rules.

[jotabe]

Miracles are things that cannot happen within the rules of this universe. There are rules in the universe, obviously, or else we would be able to walk on water any time we wanted to. But since there are rules, when Jesus did it, it was a miracle. It was not doing the impossible, since obviously it was possible or it couldn't have happened. It was doing what could not happen within the rules.

QFT

"Some of their rules can be bent. Others can be broken."

[zeroguy]

"Some of their rules can be bent. Others can be broken."

Part of me really hopes that that is from somewhere besides the Matrix.

[eriador]

But actually, all miracles are impossible, that's why they're miracles. If impossibility was a barrier, there would be no Christians. God invented the natural laws, and He isn't bound by them.

Dear f****** God! If it happened it is NOT impossible. You just perfectly proved my point! You honestly believe that something that, by definition, can not happen did happen. You have said that miracles have occurred and that "miracles are impossible." Either you aren't clear on the meaning of the term 'impossible', or, as I have said before, are so caught up in religion that you are deluding yourself. And I'm not saying that in a philisophical way. It's simple linguistics at this point. You are clearly proving yourself wrong, and it seems that you clearly understood what you are saying.

Why is it that the moment people step into this forum, basic logic goes poof? How hard can it be to realize that something that happened can not be impossible. That's a no-brainer to me, but

Christians are delusional!

[eriador]

Miracles are things that cannot happen...

I wholeheartedly agree.




As to the rest of what you said, I would consider God (if she were to exist) as part of this universe, and hence included in the "rules."

[jotabe]

Nuh huh. God is the Maker of rules... whenever you play a game, you only have to think about the rules and the other players, never the rulemaker. But when the rulemaker wants to introduce something new in the game, he has to break some rules.

Btw, zeroguy really, after all that much quoting "The Fight Club" that has been going on lately, i don't think it's fair critizice quoting the Matrix. At least, the Matrix includes some food for the mind, not just a bunch of brainless machos reveling in their own brainlessness.

[AnthonyByakko]

Nuh huh. God is the Maker of rules... whenever you play a game, you only have to think about the rules and the other players, never the rulemaker. But when the rulemaker wants to introduce something new in the game, he has to break some rules.

Btw, zeroguy really, after all that much quoting "The Fight Club" that has been going on lately, i don't think it's fair critizice quoting the Matrix. At least, the Matrix includes some food for the mind, not just a bunch of brainless machos reveling in their own brainlessness.

The Matrix was a bunch of dumb white guys trying to dumb down Buddhism for even dumber American movie-goers. D-

[Rei]

Why is it that the moment people step into this forum, basic logic goes poof? How hard can it be to realize that something that happened can not be impossible.

So what would you say about something that happens which is seemingly impossible. Say somebody has several cancerous brain tumours which are too deep to remove and they have only a few months left to live, or even a few weeks. This person goes to the doctor for a checkup to see how the cancer is progressing and the tumours and the cancer are gone completely. (And yes, I have heard of this happening with members of my church, or something very like it. It has been a few years to the exact details are fuzzy, but there was cancer, brain tumour/s, and impending death. And they did vanish suddenly for no apparent reason, to the bewilderment of the doctors.)

Or the case of my high school counsellor who suffered a stroke and had to go in for surgery and some other complication arose which, according to a friend of mine who is a very close friend of hers, healed itself before the doctor's eyes.

What do you do with things such as these? They happened, therefore clearly they are not impossible. However, they defy what we understand to be possible.

Would a better explaination of a miracle be, for you, something that is seemingly impossible yet happens all the same and cannot be explained?

[Eaquae Legit]

It's simple linguistics at this point. You are clearly proving yourself wrong, and it seems that you clearly understood what you are saying.

Except you are using a completely different definition than pretty much everyone else. Or, you're just not listening. Everyone but you seems to understand that "raising the dead is impossible" carries the unspoken caveat of "for created beings, bound by natural law." They aren't including God and God's ability under "impossible." You're confining God to human/mortal ability, which makes your complaints worthless, because you're no longer talking about God. It's not the theists who don't know what they're saying, it's you.

Why is it that the moment people step into this forum, basic logic goes poof? How hard can it be to realize that something that happened can not be impossible. That's a no-brainer to me, but

Christians are delusional!

Your "logic" is not that great either, you should know. The only way your arguments work is if we all accept your definition of the terms we're arguing. Since we don't, your arguments are meaningless to us, your "logic" worthless.

People have told you over and over again that "impossible" is a term that applies only to the created, natural world. That trying to apply it to the divine, which is beyond and outside of the universe, is a ridiculous concept. Yet you persist in telling us that we're not allowed to apply it that way. Well... tough. And that's not us being foolish or delusional, it's us knowing the difference between the natural world and the divine world. (Now, you can argue that the divine world does not exist, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish. If you want to know why we believe what we believe, you have to enter the framework, and that includes a divine world.)

Reflecting upon the previous paragraph, I think I may have pinpointed the source of the trouble here. You are unwilling to step into the framework that Christians (and other theists) work in. You tell us that your framework doesn't admit the possibility of miracles, but you refuse outright to consider that perhaps there is another framework. It's the same mistake many Christian evangelicals make when they tell you you are going to hell. They refuse to admit you might be working from an entirely different set of antecedents when you argue.

In short, the trouble isn't with us, it's with you and your inability to enter into a true dialogue. If I accepted your definitions, you might possibly have an argument. Seeing as I reject them as foolish and self-contradictory, you don't. Not to me, anyway.

***

This is the bit where EL-the-mod speaks. Your warning is renewed as of this date. If I have to remind you again that calling people delusional is Not Okay and against the forum rules of respect and courtesy, I will bring it to the other mods to consider a banning. In case you are inclined to complain, I'll note here that I'm being lenient and that normally a transgression during a warning period earns a ban right off. I have hope, though, for your ability to learn and your ability to be courteous. Please don't disappoint me.

[Yebra]

Christians believe that impossible things can happen if God decides they can.

Eridor can’t understand why you believe in impossible things.

To you, he’s just not grasping that applying impossible to the divine, which is beyond and outside the universe, is a ridiculous concept. However, if you start out with the idea that something existing beyond and outside the universe is a ridiculous concept, then your arguments are exactly as useless as Eridor trying to argue against your beliefs.

Eridor might be a little slow to catch on, but you can’t blame him entirely for the lack of debate. You’re arguing mutually incompatible world-views; there can never be a meaningful dialogue between the two.

[eriador]

Excuse me! Did any of you hear what I was saying?

1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.

Therefore, if miracles do indeed happen, they can not be impossible. Just because you're talking about God doesn't mean that you don't have to pay attention to the meaning of what you say.

[Yebra]

Excuse me! Did any of you hear what I was saying?

1. Incapable of having existence or of occurring.

Therefore, if miracles do indeed happen, they can not be impossible. Just because you're talking about God doesn't mean that you don't have to pay attention to the meaning of what you say.

What do you do with things such as these? They happened, therefore clearly they are not impossible. However, they defy what we understand to be possible.

Would a better explaination of a miracle be, for you, something that is seemingly impossible yet happens all the same and cannot be explained?

[eriador]

Well then, don't tell me that

miracles are impossible

I would much prefer it if you said that a miracle is

something that is seemingly impossible

(my emphasis)

It's hard to have a conversation if people don't use words properly, because they can't communicate effectively.

[jotabe]

The Matrix was a bunch of dumb white guys trying to dumb down Buddhism for even dumber American movie-goers. D-

But Matrix had a black guy!
Seriously now, i really don't see the relationship between Buddhism and the Matrix. I agree that the Matrix is a dumbed-down melting pot of different philosophies and religions... but saying that its main source is Buddhism is excessive. *insert here icon or raising eyebrow a-la Spock*

[Eaquae Legit]

I think I finally understand what you are trying to say, eriador. You are saying that miracles are "impossible to happen." When others are agreeing that miracles are impossible, they are agreeing that miracles are "impossible do do (unless you're God)."

Having realised this, I will say that miracles are not impossible in their happening, that it is not impossible for a man to be raised from the dead, but that it is impossible for any creature but God to do such things.

And again, it is not the sole fault of those theists who are arguing that the terms of the debate weren't clear. This is the first time in two pages and two months that I have understood how you were using the word "impossible." If you want to use a definition that is only one of many, and has different connotations than your opponents are accustomed to, it is YOUR responsibility to clarify.

[eriador]

Ummm. It's kinda a no-brainer to think that calling something an "impossibility" (I actually said that) means that it CAN NOT HAPPEN. I don't see what the difficulty is. You can blame me for not clarifying that when I said "impossible" I meant that it couldn't happen, but that's kinda the definition. It's crazy to say that I should tell you when I use words as they are defined.