What does that mean? — andrewk
Are you saying that anybody that believes they have been in communication with god is 'crazy' (whatever that means)? — andrewk
Really?Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about here and haven't ever done this sort of thing or thought in that sort of way about these sorts of people, because I don't buy that for a second. — Sapientia
really do not think that Jesus ever claimed to be Son of God. To my knowledge, he referred to himself as Son of Man. — Metaphysician Undercover
Really?
Then it appears there's no hope of my persuading you towards a more open-minded view, since you know more about what I think than I do. — andrewk
That's ambiguous. What do you mean by that? — Sapientia
All our knowledge of anything is shown from within. — TheWillowOfDarkness
There's a long tradition in rabbinical teaching of the teacher asking questions rather than providing answers or statements. Jesus eludes to the idea of being the son of God. He also refers to his "father in heaven" in the context of describing God. So these were things that were understood at the time, but the significance of Jesus' approach to teaching gets lost to history pretty often. — Noble Dust
This is false, Jesus DID claim to not only be the Son of God, but to be one with the Father. This is actually one of the charges of the Pharisees against Him before the Crucifixion.I really do not think that Jesus ever claimed to be Son of God. To my knowledge, he referred to himself as Son of Man. There are two distinct claims involved here, that Jesus claimed to be Son of God, and that Jesus is Son of God. These two are part of a very complex issue surrounding his life, sacrifice, resurrection, and Christianity itself. It may well be a major flaw in Christianity, but Christianity was created by human beings, and this is just a reflection of the imperfection of human existence. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think many people these days would bother to contest the Son of God claim, since that claim needn't be blasphemous or controversial. When I was a young RC, we used to sing a modern hymn called 'Sons of God', about how we are just that.Jesus DID claim to not only be the Son of God, but to be one with the Father. — Agustino
Okay, but I do not dispute that. Eastern Orthodoxy (of which I'm a member) teaches that Jesus Christ became man so that we may become gods. This includes some of the earliest church theologians, for example:I don't think many would bother to contest the Son of God claim, since that claim needn't be blasphemous or controversial. When I was a young RC, we used to sing a modern hymn called 'Sons of God', about how we are just that. — andrewk
However, this does not entail that we are sons of God in the same way Jesus is the Son of God.A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the Incarnation of God, which makes man God to the same degree as God Himself became man ... . Let us become the image of the one whole God, bearing nothing earthly in ourselves, so that we may consort with God and become gods, receiving from God our existence as gods. For it is clear that He Who became man without sin (cf. Heb. 4:15) will divinize human nature without changing it into the Divine Nature, and will raise it up for His Own sake to the same degree as He lowered Himself for man's sake. This is what St[.] Paul teaches mystically when he says, '[]that in the ages to come he might display the overflowing richness of His grace' (Eph. 2:7) — St. Maximus the Confessor
In reading your post the word that come to my mind is "paradigm" : some people experience the world through one paradigm and for others they see it through a different one. However the one wrinkle that kind of remains; are these paradigms (which may be created through experience and discourse as you say and/or through other means) supported merely through "appeals to authority"/"proof by assertion" or is it done through something else? — dclements
Paul is our first source (but Paul never met Jesus) and the Gospels (formed up and finished later than Paul) are the "authoritative" story of Jesus. There wouldn't have been a Jesus movement for Paul to first resist then join if Jesus had not existed. — Bitter Crank
OK, suppose we remove this distinction then, between what is internal and what is external, because it is ambiguous. How would anyone justify any claims, if they cannot demonstrate external correspondence with what they are claiming that they know within themselves? — Metaphysician Undercover
With ghosts and such, the claim is that the ghost is out there, so to justify the claim the individual must demonstrate where that ghost is. If God comes to an individual from within, and , makes His presence known to that individual from within, how can we ask that individual to demonstrate God's existence by referring to what is external to the individual. — Metaphysician Undercover
My claim - and I maintain that this was quite apparent from the start, and in retrospect you might be able to see this - is that the claim that one has experienced the presence of God in their life is analogous in ways to the claim that one has experienced the presence of extraterrestrials or ghosts in their life. — Sapientia
My argument for that would consist in bringing attention to these commonalities. Let's take evidence. What evidence is there that someone has experienced the presence of God, as opposed to having had an experience and concluded that they experienced the presence of God? I would ask likewise with regards to extraterrestrials and with regards to ghosts. — Sapientia
In this thread the interesting thought that people feeling that way can be dismissed as crazy was brought up, similarly to those who believe to have seen UFOs or ghosts, but isn't that rather irrational? When a person is diagnosed to be mentally ill based on nothing but what they say seeming irrational, isn't the doctor the crazy one? — BlueBanana
Maybe this was my fault for not being clearer about what I meant by experiencing the presence of God in one's life. — T Clark
I'm not talking about burning bushes, appearances of the holy ghost, or miracles. It's an internal experience of a prescience of something beyond one's self, outside one's self. It is a common human experience. As I said, I'm not a believer in any religion, but I've had the experience. Based on that, I don't think that interpreting it as god is crazy. It makes a certain sense. — T Clark
As I said, this is a common human experience. It's nothing weird. Maybe you've never felt it. You may have felt it but didn't identify it as God. Many, many people do see it that way. Ridiculing them without even trying to understand is arrogant. — T Clark
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish. — Sapientia
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. — Sapientia
And no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish. — Sapientia
Yes, it was. — Sapientia
I'm beyond caring about what is or is not arrogant. We aren't doing ethics. I care about what's right or wrong in the other sense. And no, if I have had such an experience, I haven't jumped to the conclusion that it was God - I'm not crazy. — Sapientia
I don't see how you can avoid the fork in the argument that I've been making. These claims are either of the supernatural or miraculous kind -
which can't be defended well - or they deflate to something rather natural and ordinary -
which makes it uncontroversial. In your case, it seems your argument tries to go in the latter direction. — Sapientia
I agree with this point. However, to move the argument forward, I think we all hit a wall. In all presentations about theism, determinism and the antithesis; we come to an “uncertainty” principle. We all reach this chasm in which the final proof is absent. I have heard you say before Sapientia “I don’t have to prove the antithesis”. I think you do – and – if you can’t “things” are uncertain. That is what we are left with – I call it the uncertainty principle. I wrote this in another thread: — Thinker
God does not need us – quite the contrary – we need God. Or perhaps I should say we desire God. — Thinker
We are almost nothing to God – a speck of dust. — Thinker
If our sun blows up – I doubt we will be missed. What is our consequence in the scheme of things? — Thinker
This forum is not where I expected to be the one to remind people that the burden of proof works both ways, that a claim can be dismissed doesn't equal the claim being false and absence of proof isn't proof of absence. — BlueBanana
Innocent until proven otherwise, right? — BlueBanana
Unless there is an specific reason to doubt person's honesty, what they're telling should from objective point of view assumed to be true. — BlueBanana
I wouldn't believe a person if they told me they were abducted by aliens, but I would recognise that as my subjective opinion. — BlueBanana
Oh, Sapientia, you say such funny things. Discussing things with you is fun. — T Clark
It's not ethics, it's the quality of the philosophy. Cluttering your statements up with comments that have nothing to do with the question at hand is bad philosophy. "That's ridiculous" is not an argument. — T Clark
I guess my take is somewhere in the middle. Completely within the bounds of the natural, I think it is reasonable to consider our world as ....sentient?....a person?.....alive? None of those are right. — T Clark
Other people have taken that further than I have and created the range of religions and Gods that step into our world and manipulate it. I think those people have included something important in their view of the world that you leave out. Regardless of my feelings about a personal God, I think that gives them an advantage. On the other hand, I think your approach has it's own advantages that theistic beliefs miss. Solution - synthesis. — T Clark
This forum is not where I expected to be the one to remind people that the burden of proof works both ways, that a claim can be dismissed doesn't equal the claim being false and absence of proof isn't proof of absence. — BlueBanana
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.