Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[Tassman]

And what is historical fact is Paul's writing of his experience and what came after, how dramatically different he became (so too the disciples and their 'experience' of Jesus risen and exalted).

Yes. But people’s subjective beliefs, whilst retransforming for the individual concerned – and can even result in worldwide consequences – are not necessarily true.

[thormas]

Yes. But people’s subjective beliefs, whilst retransforming for the individual concerned – and can even result in worldwide consequences – are not necessarily true.

Again, two different issues: Paul's (and the disciples') experience and whether or not others buy into it. There are always consequences for everything and regarding Christianity all one who disagrees can do is give their subjective opinion - and that too has consequences.

[shunyadragon]

Again, two different issues: Paul's (and the disciples') experience and whether or not others buy into it.

Yes Christians bought into it then, and yes traditional Christians buy into now.

There are always consequences for everything and regarding Christianity all one who disagrees can do is give their subjective opinion - and that too has consequences.

Yes, but true of all beliefs.

[thormas]

Yes Christians bought into it then, and yes traditional Christians buy into now.



Yes, but true of all beliefs.

Agreed - just as all people buy into something.

[Tassman]

Agreed - just as all people buy into something.

Indeed. But in the scientific era - as opposed to that of the ancient world - people tend to "buy in" to that which is supported by verifiable evidence, rather than the hearsay testimony of others.

[thormas]

Indeed. But in the scientific era - as opposed to that of the ancient world - people tend to "buy in" to that which is supported by verifiable evidence, rather than the hearsay testimony of others.

I don't disagree as my worldview, as opposed to ancient, medieval or enlightenment world views gives me insights into life, into 'things' and, therefore, enables us to tell the Christian Story in way that resonates with moderns.

However, there are things that science can't touch and the most important things like: what is this, what does it mean, how is it, how are we to act, etc. are outside the purview of the sciences. Both the religion person and other people know this.

[Tassman]

I don't disagree as my worldview, as opposed to ancient, medieval or enlightenment world views gives me insights into life, into 'things' and, therefore, enables us to tell the Christian Story in way that resonates with moderns.

It’s very difficult for the notion of a dying and rising god/man to resonate with “moderns” in the scientific era. Especially when the only evidence for it is hearsay testimony dating from 2,000 years ago..

However, there are things that science can't touch and the most important things like: what is this, what does it mean, how is it, how are we to act, etc. are outside the purview of the sciences. Both the religion person and other people know this.

So, just what are these “things” science can’t touch?

[thormas]

It’s very difficult for the notion of a dying and rising god/man to resonate with “moderns” in the scientific era. Especially when the only evidence for it is hearsay testimony dating from 2,000 years ago..



So, just what are these “things” science can’t touch?

Actually, as you must know, there are a range of Christian beliefs beyond what are called orthodox or traditional theism. And, it is not very difficult for moderns to hold the idea that such a man - an extraordinary man of Love - could not be held by death and be 'alive' with and in God. Actually it is a piece with their view of God. Also, it is not merely hearsay, as you characterize it, but for them a belief statement that resonates.

Answers to the question posed.

You must realize that for many others, the atheist position is (just as) absurd. A true such position must hold that there is no real meaning or purpose to existence, some even characterize it as an accident. So each life, your life, if less than a minuscule flicker in the vastness of time and space (and even less than that), signifying nothing. And even if one declares that it has meaning for them or they will make it meaningful - it still means nothing and efforts to impose meaning on it are absurd. Again in this atheist belief.

[Tassman]

]

Actually, as you must know, there are a range of Christian beliefs beyond what are called orthodox or traditional theism. And, it is not very difficult for moderns to hold the idea that such a man - an extraordinary man of Love - could not be held by death and be 'alive' with and in God. Actually it is a piece with their view of God. Also, it is not merely hearsay, as you characterize it, but for them a belief statement that resonates.

It is a subjective “resonating belief statement” based upon hearsay testimony dating from 2,000 years ago. This was a superstitious, pre-scientific era when claims of miracles and resurrecting gods and the like, were acceptable and commonplace – e.g. Apollonius of Tyana. Such claims are not acceptable today.

Answers to the question posed.

You must realize that for many others, the atheist position is (just as) absurd. A true such position must hold that there is no real meaning or purpose to existence, some even characterize it as an accident. So each life, your life, if less than a minuscule flicker in the vastness of time and space (and even less than that), signifying nothing. And even if one declares that it has meaning for them or they will make it meaningful - it still means nothing and efforts to impose meaning on it are absurd. Again in this atheist belief.

Are Homo sapiens different in principle to other hominids such as archaic humans e.g. Homo erectus or Neanderthal Man – or our fellow apes today such as chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans? What was and is the “real meaning or purpose for their existence”? Do they have one? And yes, we are “less than a minuscule flicker in the vastness of time and space”, why is that a problem?

[thormas]

]

It is a subjective “resonating belief statement” based upon hearsay testimony dating from 2,000 years ago. This was a superstitious, pre-scientific era when claims of miracles and resurrecting gods and the like, were acceptable and commonplace – e.g. Apollonius of Tyana. Such claims are not acceptable today.



Are Homo sapiens different in principle to other hominids such as archaic humans e.g. Homo erectus or Neanderthal Man – or our fellow apes today such as chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans? What was and is the “real meaning or purpose for their existence”? Do they have one? And yes, we are “less than a minuscule flicker in the vastness of time and space”, why is that a problem?

It is subjective. However, 21st C progressive Christians (for example) can believe in God and assert that such a man as Jesus (and any such human being) can be 'risen and exalted' by God (called humanization or divination by some); such a human can be (believed to be) 'alive in God.' It is no less rational than a statement or belief asserting the opposite........and neither is at odds with science since this is an area beyond the sciences. And, although I get your point, of course it is acceptable in the 21st C...........since it is in fact, accepted.

Of course we are different , in important ways. Don't you? As to their meaning that too is part of the Christian story.

Here we differ my friend, for if one truly believes that he/she is but a flicker - if even that - in the vastness of time and space, if indeed all is meaningless, then given this reality it is simply absurd to do anything at all - for it too is meaningless and the very act of acting defies one's belief. So the dilemma is either act, do anything and it gives the lie to the atheist's belief (he asserts one thing and does another) or one must have the courage to fully accept the meaningless and futility of all and simply commit the only truly free and defiant act: the death of oneself. I simply doubt that many are truly, true atheists.

I choose Christianity :+}

[Tassman]

It is subjective. However, 21st C progressive Christians (for example) can believe in God and assert that such a man as Jesus (and any such human being) can be 'risen and exalted' by God (called humanization or divination by some); such a human can be (believed to be) 'alive in God.' It is no less rational than a statement or belief asserting the opposite........and neither is at odds with science since this is an area beyond the sciences. And, although I get your point, of course it is acceptable in the 21st C...........since it is in fact, accepted.

Yes, it is accepted by many – although I would suggest that this is usually based upon cultural conditioning as much as personal conviction. Especially given that those from more secular countries do not so choose, e.g. my country of Australia where the churches are virtually empty on Sundays.

Of course we are different , in important ways. Don't you? As to their meaning that too is part of the Christian story.

We are no different in kind to other hominids, simply more intelligent. As for the “Christian story” it, like all religions, evolved in the prescientific era as an attempt to explain where lightening came from and etc.

Here we differ my friend, for if one truly believes that he/she is but a flicker - if even that - in the vastness of time and space, if indeed all is meaningless, then given this reality it is simply absurd to do anything at all - for it too is meaningless and the very act of acting defies one's belief. So the dilemma is either act, do anything and it gives the lie to the atheist's belief (he asserts one thing and does another) or one must have the courage to fully accept the meaningless and futility of all and simply commit the only truly free and defiant act: the death of oneself. I simply doubt that many are truly, true atheists.

Except that it is NOT meaningless. We are a social species and as such we have evolved to find meaning in communal life via our families and loved ones – as have all other hominids such as chimpanzees, orangutans and archaic humans like Neanderthal man and Homo erectus.

I choose Christianity :+}

I choose verifiable facts as opposed to alleged religious revelation.

[siam]

]
....

Are Homo sapiens different in principle to other hominids such as archaic humans e.g. Homo erectus or Neanderthal Man – or our fellow apes today such as chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans? What was and is the “real meaning or purpose for their existence”? Do they have one? And yes, we are “less than a minuscule flicker in the vastness of time and space”, why is that a problem?

difference between human and animal might be that our social needs are different?----because of our physical characteristics ---that is, we are less physically well-off than other animals but in return, we have lager mental capacity to think creatively in order to adapt and survive....this means that we can "invent".
The invention of gods may have been a means to get stability/peace---because warfare is destructive to our species survival. For example---blaming gods for famine or food struggles was better than blaming each other. Blaming god could unite the tribe in their struggles--blaming each other would divide the tribe and thereby limit the chance of survival. Rituals to appease the gods were tools to buy time and give hope---they were survival tools.

It seems Christianity simply made the "appeasement of god by sacrifice" an abstract concept rather than an actual action/activity? This means one did not need an actual building or place/location for a sacrifice---since it was an abstract concept....it may have contributed to the spread of Christianity---since polytheism generally was attached to particular locations?........

[thormas]

Yes, it is accepted by many – although I would suggest that this is usually based upon cultural conditioning as much as personal conviction. Especially given that those from more secular countries do not so choose, e.g. my country of Australia where the churches are virtually empty on Sundays.



We are no different in kind to other hominids, simply more intelligent. As for the “Christian story” it, like all religions, evolved in the prescientific era as an attempt to explain where lightening came from and etc.



Except that it is NOT meaningless. We are a social species and as such we have evolved to find meaning in communal life via our families and loved ones – as have all other hominids such as chimpanzees, orangutans and archaic humans like Neanderthal man and Homo erectus.



I choose verifiable facts as opposed to alleged religious revelation.

I agree - at least at the beginning since most are introduced to their religion as infants but many, myself included, take the time to explore and examine and it becomes a choice for or against.
And I agree that churches are empty - but that, in large part, is because Christianity has not been consistently and thoughtfully re-presented to moderns.

Not only intelligence but we appear to have a higher or different consciousness, self-consciousness than other hominoids.

Christianity evolved to explain lightening? Good one:+}

The meaning you have imposed on life is as much a belief system as any organized religion. And if the atheist is right then life is an accident, a happenstance........and, no matter your belief about finding some meaning - it is overwhelmed and made insignificant by the absurdity that it was all just an accident; it all makes no difference.

I respect your choice but scientific facts do not allow you to assert that life is meaningful. Any meaning imposed or suspected is not the result of verifiable facts: it is belief.

[thormas]

difference between human and animal might be that our social needs are different?----because of our physical characteristics ---that is, we are less physically well-off than other animals but in return, we have lager mental capacity to think creatively in order to adapt and survive....this means that we can "invent".
The invention of gods may have been a means to get stability/peace---because warfare is destructive to our species survival. For example---blaming gods for famine or food struggles was better than blaming each other. Blaming god could unite the tribe in their struggles--blaming each other would divide the tribe and thereby limit the chance of survival. Rituals to appease the gods were tools to buy time and give hope---they were survival tools.

It seems Christianity simply made the "appeasement of god by sacrifice" an abstract concept rather than an actual action/activity? This means one did not need an actual building or place/location for a sacrifice---since it was an abstract concept....it may have contributed to the spread of Christianity---since polytheism generally was attached to particular locations?........

That might be part of the difference but, seemingly, animals do not have consciousness of self nor are they transcendent - in that they 'reach' beyond themselves for meaning.

Your theory on the reason for the invention of religion is interesting but I have not seen that 'not wanting to blame each other' has been given as the reason for religion or the gods.

As for Christianity - the only sacrifice was that of Jesus (if indeed one accepts that notion of atonement).

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=thormas;n1204426]

That might be part of the difference but, seemingly, animals do not have consciousness of self 9/quote]

Science has indeed demonstrated that animals do indeed have consciousness and many like birds, sea mammals, elephants and primates do have strong reasoning and emotional attributes to consciousness.

. . . nor are they transcendent - in that they 'reach' beyond themselves for meaning.

To a degree I agree, but you drifting in the unknown here.