Why do discussions about religion always lump God and afterlife together?

[Sola_Fide]

Yes. People write books. Let's look at THE book. The writers of the bible chose "word" not "logic". Why?

You didn't read the article. When you do, we can have a conversation about why you are wrong.

 

[robert68]

You didn't read the article. When you do, we can have a conversation about why you are wrong.

If someone at RPF’s asked you to read a long article written by, according the them, “the foremost Greek scholar and foremost Christian theologian in the history of the earth”, who happened to be a devout Roman Catholic, I doubt you would read it. Yet you expect non Calvinists to jump at reading long articles written by Calvinists. In rational debate, participants cite sources they both/all consider credible.

 

[Smart3]

If someone at RPF’s asked you to read a long article written by, according the them, “the foremost Greek scholar and foremost Christian theologian in the history of the earth”, who happened to be a devout Roman Catholic, I doubt you would read it.

If he were foremost, he wouldn't be a Catholic.

 

[robert68]

If he were foremost, he wouldn't be a Catholic.

He would agree.

 

[otherone]

You didn't read the article. When you do, we can have a conversation about why you are wrong.

I read the article, and you haven't answered my question. If "logic" was the writer's intent, why isn't it in John? If it's a mistranslation, is the commonly read Bible wrong? Why wasn't it corrected? Is then the only unerring Word of God only in the original Greek?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Ontology is the study of being and is centered around addressing questions like what does it mean to exist, what is existence. I guess you can say that it is also within the scope of philosophy of religion too.

That's where the disconnect lives. When I say "I believe in the Messiah," I'm not talking about something I do on weekends, or something I think about occasionally. I mean that the Messiah is the full scope, sum, depth, and breadth of my ontological reality.

The "freedom from religion" types approach a Christian from the perspective that we all inhabit the same ontological framework - the same reality of existence - and want them to 'shut up' in certain public situations. The problem is you are asking the Christian to abandon their entire ontology, their entire reality of existence to do so.

An ontological framework is not something that you can slip on and off like a pair of shoes. It defines reality every minute of every day from now until the day I die. Following the Messiah is not some game that I can pause, nor is it some self-constructed fantasy world that I can shut down from time to time.

One issue that some here are sure to hate me for, is we have a County in NC, Rowan County, where the County Commissioners open their meetings in prayer. Every one of them is a Christian, and they pray in the Name of Jesus Christ, the name by which they know the Messiah. Washington DC has stepped in and said they are not allowed to do that, and now there is a giant controversy going back and forth.

The 1st Amendment talks about Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. That means that Congress has no right to tell the Rowan County Commission that they can't pray in the Name of Christ. Nor can they tell them not to pray in the name of beersheba, ba'al, mulungu, yu-huang-shang-ti, amaterasu, pachamac, jupiter, zeus, xiuhtecuhtli, atum, enki, loki, batala, lugh, cronus, awonawilona, kitcki manitou, io, pele, qat, or baba yaga. The federal government has zero authority to do anything with respect to religion, period.

But that doesn't even touch the liberty issue. Just because someone has the grave misfortune to get elected means they have to abandon their entire world-view? I trow not!

The problem here is a difference of perception. Christianity in whatever flavor, is not so much a religion, as it is an entire ontological reality. I am sure other faiths are also. Those talking about making a pretense at spiritual neutrality consider their own ontology and believes that every soul shares it. Therefore these believers must be playing at a philosophy and surely they can just refrain from playing at the philosophy when they are in the public eye...

Absolutely not! You could just as principally make a requirement that men be castrated and women have hysterectomies prior to serving in public office. It is an utter abandonment of who they are and as well of who the people elected.

The disconnect between what is 'religion' to people and what is an 'ontology' is absolutely the same disconnect that drives the misunderstandings around this issue. I believe in Yeshua Moshiach Emmanuel, I do not have a religion, I have an ontology.

I believe if we all really understood that, there would still be disagreement, but there would be a lot less misunderstanding.

 

[Sola_Fide]

If someone at RPF’s asked you to read a long article written by, according the them, “the foremost Greek scholar and foremost Christian theologian in the history of the earth”, who happened to be a devout Roman Catholic, I doubt you would read it. Yet you expect non Calvinists to jump at reading long articles written by Calvinists. In rational debate, participants cite sources they both/all consider credible.

Of course I would read it. I read things from authors who disagree with me all of time. You have to know what you believe and why you believe it. You also have to know what you don't believe and why you don't believe it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I read the article, and you haven't answered my question. If "logic" was the writer's intent, why isn't it in John? If it's a mistranslation, is the commonly read Bible wrong? Why wasn't it corrected? Is then the only unerring Word of God only in the original Greek?

The article answers the question. Yes, the Greek is what is inspired, not the translations.

 

[otherone]

The article answers the question. Yes, the Greek is what is inspired, not the translations.

So to know the word of god, we need to know Greek, or trust flawed translations?

 

[Sola_Fide]

So to know the word of god, we need to know Greek, or trust flawed translations?

I would say to not know the Greek, in its usage of the day, really does limit your understanding of God's Word.

 

[otherone]

I would say to not know the Greek, in its usage of the day, really does limit your understanding of God's Word.

Thank goodness there are educated folk out there who are willing to tell us what the bible actually says!

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Thank goodness there are educated folk out there who are willing to tell us what the bible actually says!

Ehh, it's not like that really. Sure there is a difference, and in just a couple places the translators lost the bubble; but for the vast vast majority the difference between the originals and English is more on the order of the difference between a color movie and the same movie in black and white. There is not a great deal of loss of meaning. Some does exist though - John 21:15-19 comes to mind where if you don't read it in the Greek you are going to miss a critical interchange with /agape/ and /phileo/. The English everywhere just uses the one word "love" that doesn't cover the meaning very well.

But pretty much the entire "NT" and the "OT" say the same thing in the original as in a competent English translation, particularly such as the NASB, what you miss in the English are mostly tones and shadings of meaning. Like a black and white movie vs the same movie in color.

 

[robert68]

...

What are you saying now? That if we have axioms and a creator then we don't have minds. But if we have axioms but no creator, then we do? The crucial point was the axioms. And you're the one ducking that. I still can't tell if you think that having axioms makes someone a puppet, or if you concede the point that we all have them. The fact that you've stretched this out so long without saying what you really mean about those things shows you're the one ducking.

I don't really have anything to duck. Your claim about puppets is nonsensical. If it makes any sense at all to you, then maybe that's because there's something in your reasoning that you haven't spelled out here.

Is the quote below supposed to mean “we” only know what “our creator” wants “us” to know?

If not, be more precise in what you mean by it.

But we know it because our creator designed us to know it.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Is the quote below supposed to mean “we” only know what “our creator” wants “us” to know?

If not, be more precise in what you mean by it.

You cannot go from "But we know it because our creator designed us to know it." to "“we” only know what “our creator” wants “us” to know" without some kind of fallacious leap of logic. Specifically (I believe off the top of my head) Composition. Possibly the single cause, depending on how you came to your conclusion. It's probably not a hasty generalization even though that's what it looks like.

If the maker of a laptop made it to take DVD media does that imply that it will therefore not accept a USB stick? The characteristics of a component in a system do not necessarily transfer to the overall system. We already know that humans can take their beyond the will of God, because they saw the root of the knowledge of good and evil before they were ready for it. A behavior today known as sophistry (different from the Platonic era) was forbidden knowledge, and yet the knowledge of it multiplies in today's world. If it was your math teachers will that you learned geometry, that didn't prevent you from going home and learning video games. This knowledge was directed by God, therefore all knowledge is directed by God. (Composition)

If you assume the outcome to be all human knowledge, the cause for the knowledge of one thing is not necessarily the cause for all knowledge. You cannot take the premise that man knows how to make nuclear bombs because of science, and therefore assume that man knows how to love because of science. This knowledge was directed by God, therefore all knowledge is directed by God. (Single Cause)

If you assume the outcome as being "humans have x, y, z" knowledge, a statement about the origin of X knowledge does not necessarily apply to Y and Z. Cats purr, therefore all pets purr. This knowledge was directed by God, therefore all knowledge is directed by God. (Hasty Generalization)

I can't say which one it is because you aren't showing your work, but to go from erowe's premise to your conclusion requires a fallacious leap of some kind, most likely one of the three I detail above.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It could actually be a formal fallacy also, depending on how you processed the argument. Again, you did all of that in your head so we cannot know which route you took.

But we know it because our creator designed us to know it.

D = our creator designed us to know it
K = we know it

D therefore K

becomes

not-D therefore not-K (Denying the Antecedent)

therefore

“we” only know what “our creator” wants “us” to know

 

[GunnyFreedom]

// silly duplicate

 

[robert68]

You cannot go from "But we know it because our creator designed us to know it." to "“we” only know what “our creator” wants “us” to know" without some kind of fallacious leap of logic. Specifically (I believe off the top of my head) Composition. Possibly the single cause, depending on how you came to your conclusion. It's probably not a hasty generalization even though that's what it looks like.

It sounds like you didn’t read any of my posts in this thread preceding that one. My initial reply to erowe’s post with that line in it was the following: “You may well be a puppet or automaton of some being, and it makes you say and do what you do. But I know I’m no one’s puppet and have good reason to believe I’ve far from the only one. “

If the maker of a laptop made it to take DVD media does that imply that it will therefore not accept a USB stick? The characteristics of a component in a system do not necessarily transfer to the overall system.

A laptop computer is no more or less than what its maker (creator) made it, as is a puppet or automaton, and it has no mind or will of its own.

We already know that humans can take their beyond the will of God, because they saw the root of the knowledge of good and evil before they were ready for it. A behavior today known as sophistry (different from the Platonic era) was forbidden knowledge, and yet the knowledge of it multiplies in today's world.

I’m not religious so there’s no “we”, and even if I was, the religious interpret the Bible numerous ways.

If it was your math teachers will that you learned geometry, that didn't prevent you from going home and learning video games. This knowledge was directed by God, therefore all knowledge is directed by God. (Composition)

The math teacher is not "God".

If you assume the outcome to be all human knowledge, the cause for the knowledge of one thing is not necessarily the cause for all knowledge. You cannot take the premise that man knows how to make nuclear bombs because of science, and therefore assume that man knows how to love because of science. This knowledge was directed by God, therefore all knowledge is directed by God. (Single Cause)

If you assume the outcome as being "humans have x, y, z" knowledge, a statement about the origin of X knowledge does not necessarily apply to Y and Z. Cats purr, therefore all pets purr. This knowledge was directed by God, therefore all knowledge is directed by God. (Hasty Generalization)

I can't say which one it is because you aren't showing your work, but to go from erowe's premise to your conclusion requires a fallacious leap of some kind, most likely one of the three I detail above.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Thank goodness there are educated folk out there who are willing to tell us what the bible actually says!

Well, why should I feel guilty because I study the Bible and you don't?

 

[robert68]

Don't you see how the Logos is that eternal Truth? "In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men." The Light of men is their logic, which does not exist without the eternal Son who is the expression of that Logic.

That Light "shines in the darkness, but the darkness did not comprehend it".

Its too beautiful for words...

It’s a good thing Karl Marx didn’t say communism was “logic” or “truth” in the Communist Manifesto.

 

[otherone]

Well, why should I feel guilty because I study the Bible and you don't?

You shouldn't feel guilty about studying the Bible...you should feel guilt about your hubris, unless you know koine Greek. I was referring to the translators when I spoke of "educated folk".
seriously dude..."pride".