this sux. I am totally unable to write in face book now.
Posts
The Story Of The Woman Caught In Adultery
"The section about the adulterous (7:53-8-11) is, no doubt, a true story from the life of Jesus; but it is poorly supported by documentary evidence. It is not found in Aleph A B C L T W X Delta and at least seventy cursives and numerous Evangelistaria (Gospel Lectionaries). It is also wanting in the Old Syriac, the Peshitta, the Harkloan, in some copies of the Old Latin, and in several of the minor versions. Really, it appears in no Greek manuscript earlier than the eighth century, save in Codex Beza (5"cent.), which has many textual peculiarities. It is not quoted as by John until late in the fourth century, at which time Augustine says that some have removed it from their copies, fearing, he supposes, that its presence might give their wives undue license Jerome says that in his day it was contained in many Greek and Latin MSS." Plummer reminds us, however, that most of the worst corruptions of the text were already in existence in Jerome's time." Practicall…
An Ontological Argument from the Nature of Being Itself
"The name of infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of our being is God. That depth is what the word God means. And if that word has not much meaning for you, translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern, of what you take seriously without any reservation. Perhaps, in order to do so, you must forget everything traditional that you have learned about God, perhaps even that word itself. For if you know that God means depth, you know much about Him. You cannot then call yourself an atheist or unbeliever. For you cannot think or say: Life has no depth! Life itself is shallow. Being itself is surface only. If you could say this in complete seriousness, you would be an atheist; but otherwise you are not."
--Paul Tillich, The Shaking of The Foundations
This arguement will make a lot more sense if you read this priliminary page first:God as The Ground of Being
Argument:
(1) We recognize the same primary ontological quali…
--Paul Tillich, The Shaking of The Foundations
This arguement will make a lot more sense if you read this priliminary page first:God as The Ground of Being
Argument:
(1) We recognize the same primary ontological quali…
The Septuagint And Anthropomorphisms
"The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament made in Alexandria about 200 years before Christ, makes deliberate attempts to remove the anthropomorphisms of God. For example the Hebrew of Exodus 15:3, “The Lord is a man of war” (KJV) is rendered in the Septuagint by the words, “The Lord crushing wars.” “The form of the Lord” in the Hebrew of Numbers 12:8 is rendered in the Septuagint “the glory of the Lord.” In Exodus 32:14, “And the Lord repented of the evil,” the Septuagint reads,“And the Lord was moved with compassion."
Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 30
Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 30
Mystical Experience, more than "getting happy."
A major philospher and friend of Brut Russell, Loren, makes these comments on the comment section in response to "Meaning and Truth."
Shouting "It's not a hallucination! It's not a hallucination! It's not a hallucination!" is a very bad argument, as is your waving away the serious epistemological problem that Bertrand Russell, Mark Vuletic, and I have tried to consider.
And becoming happy by believing something in no way indicates its truth. You could become very happy by believing that none of your miseries are any of your fault, blaming many of them on various conspiracies, but would your happiness indicate your faultlessness?
This is a hackney tactic of trying to hide the phenomena by re describing in ways the obscure what's important about it. I say RE results in "life transformation" she purposely reduces this to "getting happy" becasue the atheist can't face the facts or the truth that hundreds of studies demonstrate the …
Shouting "It's not a hallucination! It's not a hallucination! It's not a hallucination!" is a very bad argument, as is your waving away the serious epistemological problem that Bertrand Russell, Mark Vuletic, and I have tried to consider.
And becoming happy by believing something in no way indicates its truth. You could become very happy by believing that none of your miseries are any of your fault, blaming many of them on various conspiracies, but would your happiness indicate your faultlessness?
This is a hackney tactic of trying to hide the phenomena by re describing in ways the obscure what's important about it. I say RE results in "life transformation" she purposely reduces this to "getting happy" becasue the atheist can't face the facts or the truth that hundreds of studies demonstrate the …
Adherence To The Word Of God
"The Scriptures are called fire, to consume false teaching (Jer. 23:29); a hammer, to shatter people's hard hearts (v. 29); food, to sustain one's soul (Ps. 119:103; Jer. 15:16; 1 Cor. 3:2; Heb. 5:13-14; 1 Peter 2:2); a light, to guide our paths (Ps. 119:105); and a sword, for offense against Satan (Eph. 6:17; cf. Luke 4:4, 8, 12). In Psalm 119 the psalmist used many verbs to speak of his response to God's Word: walk according to keep, obey, follow, trust in, seek out, delight in, meditate on, consider, rejoice in, see, understand, hope in, teach, speak of, remember, not forget, not forsake, not depart from, not stray from, not turn from, believe in, consider, long for, love, stand in awe of, tremble at, sing of, and choose."
Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 280
Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 280
my Cosmological Argument for God.
I have a standard sort of God argument that I used to make all the time. It began as an version of the cosmological argument and I called "cosmological necessity."
(1) The Universe is contingent upon "prior" conditions (conditions that existed "prior" to our understanding of space/time:
(a) Prior condition being space/time, or gravitational field.
Matter, energy, all physical phenomena stem from 'gravitational field' the prior condition of which is he big bang, the prior condition of which is the singularity, the prior condition of which is...we do not know.(b)All naturalistic phenomena are empirically derived, thus they are contingent by their very nature.
"There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality." First Things: Physics and the Mind of God: The…
(1) The Universe is contingent upon "prior" conditions (conditions that existed "prior" to our understanding of space/time:
(a) Prior condition being space/time, or gravitational field.
Matter, energy, all physical phenomena stem from 'gravitational field' the prior condition of which is he big bang, the prior condition of which is the singularity, the prior condition of which is...we do not know.(b)All naturalistic phenomena are empirically derived, thus they are contingent by their very nature.
"There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality." First Things: Physics and the Mind of God: The…
on Metacrock's blog
Can Science really Prove The Basis of Modern Physics?
https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2020/07/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html I've demonstrated in other posts, that transcendent realms were not the original concept of supernatural. That is, however, the modern Western concept. Thus, we might as well ask, are there realms beyond our knowing, is this possible? If so, is there any possibility of our investigating them? Scientists have usually tended to assume that metaphysical assumptions about realms beyond are just out of the domain of science and can’t be investigated so they don’t bother to comment.
https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2020/07/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html I've demonstrated in other posts, that transcendent realms were not the original concept of supernatural. That is, however, the modern Western concept. Thus, we might as well ask, are there realms beyond our knowing, is this possible? If so, is there any possibility of our investigating them? Scientists have usually tended to assume that metaphysical assumptions about realms beyond are just out of the domain of science and can’t be investigated so they don’t bother to comment.
More About The Soul
July 13,2020
Bill Lauritzen, in “Can a Machine Have a Soul,”[1] argues against the existence of the soul.It is my contention that he has a simplistic and wrong notion of soul. He tells us what he means by the term: ”I am not talking about souls in a metaphorical sense, as the 'essence' of a person, I am talking about 'the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal .'"
It is my contention that he has it backwards. The notion he does not deal with as the essence of a human is the right notion and the idea of an immortal aspect is not the preponderance of uses in the Bible.
There is, however, a Caveat. The Hebrew term used in OT for soul is nephesh or Nefesh it has a multiplicity of meanings. One can find passages where it is interchangeable with spirit and where it is an mortal aspect separate from the body. But as I say that's not the preponderance of meanings.
I have changed my view on this. I had gone in for the modernist …
Bill Lauritzen, in “Can a Machine Have a Soul,”[1] argues against the existence of the soul.It is my contention that he has a simplistic and wrong notion of soul. He tells us what he means by the term: ”I am not talking about souls in a metaphorical sense, as the 'essence' of a person, I am talking about 'the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal .'"
It is my contention that he has it backwards. The notion he does not deal with as the essence of a human is the right notion and the idea of an immortal aspect is not the preponderance of uses in the Bible.
There is, however, a Caveat. The Hebrew term used in OT for soul is nephesh or Nefesh it has a multiplicity of meanings. One can find passages where it is interchangeable with spirit and where it is an mortal aspect separate from the body. But as I say that's not the preponderance of meanings.
I have changed my view on this. I had gone in for the modernist …