I don't think you're trying to convert me, but I don't get why you think the scale of the claims somehow makes them more plausible? — Pfhorrest
Allow me an AMEN!On issues of such enormous scale as addressed by the God concept, if you're persuaded you know the difference between fact and fiction, you haven't fully grown up yet. Instead, you've just migrated from one fantasy knowing story to another. — Hippyhead
Of course you don't, lil troll - that's why you wrote that false premise. :roll: Hint: More or less like the selections of canonical NT scriptures, The Nicene Creed was written declaring 'Jesus is "in part God"' only in order to appease the demands of a pagan emperor who, believing himself divine (i.e. avatar of Jupiter, Mithras or whatever) according to Roman tradition, could not make Christianity the official religion of the empire - and thereby be baptized into "the faith" - if the Christians' so-called "messiah" was only a "blessed", but not divine, human being, which had been an unsettled controversy for centuries since the earliest churches and congregational synods. True to form: you don't know what you are talking about, lil troll, and project your own failings on those who take issue with yours.Really, I don't understand, how so? — 3017amen
The Nicene Creed was written declaring 'Jesus is "in part God"' only in order to appease the demands of a pagan emperor who, believing himself divine (i.e. avatar of Jupiter, Mithras or whatever) according to Roman tradition, could not make Christianity the official religion of the empire - and thereby be baptized into "the faith" - if the Christians' so-called "messiah" was only a "blessed", but not divine, human being, as most of the early churches had taught & congregations had believed for centuries.
You raise a good point, the allegory was a means of conveying wisdom amongst uneducated (relatively) populations. Something which has been practiced for millennia and long before modern religions like Christianity came along.Perhaps the best example is the Book of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve. Was there a guy, a gal, and a talking snake? Probably not. That part is probably just a fable which tries to explain something profound to uneducated peasants of 3,000 years ago, much as we might try to explain sex to a five year old.
Quite.But is our relationship with knowledge a central fact of our personal human experience? Is that relationship causing us to race towards ejection from the garden of eden of the biosphere in our own time? Does the Adam and Eve story reference something which could be profoundly true? Maybe it does.
Indeed, the book of Revelation might be appropriate. Wisdom is something which isn't recognised in the modern world, but was of great importance in the past when peoples didn't have the extensive teachings available to us now. Even now wisdom is invaluable in steering our civilisation forward. Although we currently have a problem with our leaders who seem to have buried their heads up their own backsides rather than seek out wide council ( revelation indeed).My guess is that there were some quite wise people in ancient times, and they tried to share what they saw in the cultural medium of their time. That cultural medium is now very out of date, but that doesn't automatically equal their insights being useless.
Yeah - propaganda, apologia, polemics ... marketing for fund-raising, etc.It is common for religious organisations to embellish their message ...
You raise a good point, the allegory was a means of conveying wisdom amongst uneducated (relatively) populations. — Punshhh
A good philosophy professor will not tell you what to think, but will instead feed you questions that cause you to do your own thinking. Art, and religion, can be like that. — Hippyhead
And if one recognizes they are the product of guesswork...of no particular harm. — Frank Apisa
It's the logic that says god is omniscient and yet benevolent; that he loves you and yet will send you to hell; that bread is flesh, wine is blood; that worships a zombie and encourages ritual cannibalism; that rejects abortion but will not help the needy; that ignores pedophilia in its institutions; that three are one; that rejects love if it is between a man and another man... — Banno
True to form: you don't know what you are talking about, lil troll, and project your own failings on those who take issue with yours. — 180 Proof
And so the syllogism still holds.
Not sure what all the fuss is about. Unless of course you're simply disgruntled over the truth about Christianity, not sure... . — 3017amen
If it is "known", then provide or indicate evidence which corroborates the claims of the Christian Bible — 180 Proof
As noted before, your "syllogism" is not a syllogism - if that is of any interest to you. — tim wood
That would be irrelevant since "to quote scripture" does not corroborate the claims of scripture.to quote Christian Scripture — 3017amen
Whoa. :yikes: I gave you waaaaay too much intellectual credit, 3017. If you think the Christian Bible is a "history book", then ... ok. I'm done here, apologies for wasting your time and, especially, mine. :sweat:... not sure what your argument is... . If you're saying one should not believe in history books ...
Syllogisms of the sort you're "using" have three terms. Count your terms; you have four. And that even has a name, the fallacy of the four terms. — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.