First Human Cloned - What do you think?
- Thread starter Lynx
- Start date
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
That's fair enough, but in that case, have the decency to say clearly that your view is based on religious views, not on objective analysis of the three religions' similarities and differences (which would give you a different answer).
Heh, no, although that's what is occasionally claimed as the explanation. In fact, the reason the USA supports Israel is because not supporting it would dramatically lower a president's chances for re-election.
Preacher
Swabbie
Banned
--I thought I made it pretty clear, but obviously not clear enough--sorry, my bad. Anyway, sure it's based on religious views, because objective analysis of a topic that's so subjective is darn near impossible. Indeed, about the best objective analysis to be gleaned is to comparatively note what their scriptures say about one another, or in the absence of that (since Christian & Jewish scripture was completed before the origin of Islam), to inductively deduce from those scriptures what the position is/would be. Taking all of the Christian scriptures - the Bible - into account (in particular the writings of Paul, since he addressed the subject so much), it's clear what the Christian position is RE: the Jews. Again, I can't represent the position of Jews or Muslims RE: the other two faiths, but here is the church's position.
--I didn't say it was the only reason, just one of the biggies. And, why do you think it is that a Prez's re-election chances would be hurt?... Sure, we have some Jewish money involved, and a certain percentage of the voters are Jewish (though statistically only a small minority). But just about every candidate for Prez (regardless of whether Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal, incumbent or first-time candidate) has had a position of strong supp. for Israel. This is due in large part to our strong Judeo-Christian heritage - along with the other factors you/Ghost mentioned...
--Huh?...I cited the relevant Islamic positions on the subject, then moved on. How's that "ignoring"?...
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Naturally, it's not the only reason, but it is the dominant one. Any US politician readily admits that the last thing s/he'd want to do is anger the Jewish lobby.
Yes, you did - then you moved on to Judaism, and ignored Judaim's stance on Jesus, which was your primary argument when it came to the Muslims - that's ignoring
. But why don't we just end this conversation, since we won't get anywhere 
.The catholic church isnt in ERROR on these matters, they disagree with you. The only scriptural matter that is relevant is that which relates to the petrine doctorine, because if you accept this then all other catholic beliefs are a ok and are not in error. The petrine doctorine has tons of scriptural support for its views as well,and basically it is why i like catholism more than protestantism, because it pretty much says (dont think anyone would admit it), why is some random guy named paul who never even met christ any more of an expert on these things then the descendant of peter and bishop of rome?
(Just as a correction, my last post in here actually is miswriten i meant 13th Prophet, not apostle. Typo)
Ok other notes i have to respond to that which came after that part.
To claim that the muslims do not believe in the same god as the jews is to be ignorant. Islam has the same relation to Judeaism as Christianity does to Judeaism. Both Islam and Christianity took all of what the jewish god said, believed it, then added in another book (set of books, whatever) being taught by some great dude, which then became the primary construction for their views, but never changing which god they believed in, just his positions on the issues, and whether or not his son was born yet or not.
No offence dude but in actuality, Islam is a further refinement upon the christian god. Christianity took the jewish beliefs given to them by all those prophet people and moses, etc (is moses one of the prophets?) and added in the views of their messiah and his stool pidgeons.
Islam took all that the jews and their prophets taught, then took which the christian messiah said and counted it among the teachings of the original prophets claiming that the christian messiah was one of the other prophets.
They then had another prophet come along and tell them what god's new refinements on the message were.
To say that these three religions dont worship the same god (sure they have arguments as to whehter or not he is in 3 parts or 1) is really really ignorant of the respective beliefs and the origins of each belief system.
To go back to the building. Judeaism is the bedrock, christianity is the foundation, islam is the building
I think that very unlikely. A lot of the time such statements stem from a misunderstanding of what is involved. For example, once I read this commentary about how physicist are always finding new particles, and about quantum states yadda yadda. Then it goes on about maybe that there's some sort of quantum state for DNA so you can get different 'types' of C, T,G and A. Can't remember how the author connected the two. But that's stupid. DNA is big, it's not a bunch of particles that typically only exist for nanoseconds and whose effect on the physical world is so miniscule that you need incredibly sensitive detectors to measure the effects.
So are you saying that "God is omnipotent" is not a a valid axiom?
Clearly, there is a fallacy in the concept that omnipotence must necessarily include the ability to invalidate itself. No self-contradicting statement can be logically valid, therefore logically an omnipotent God cannot invalidate His omnipotence. God may choose not to exercise power over something, but calling God removing His own ability to influence something a destruction of His omnipotence is a deliberate Catch-22--it is an argument created specifically to be unresolvable.
cff
Kilk'dymga'qith laq Ik'vikvi
But how can it be a different god. Lets assume there is only one Jesus and we assume he only talked in behalf of one god. Can we agree here?
Now the Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet for their god.
End of prove for me...
And what the curch says or doesn't - *shrug* I don't care. The church doesn't follow the Bible either...
Well, similar might have been said for Newtonian Physics...
It doesn't even have to contradict classic logic, just expand it.
Hmm. Sounds strange. But you know there are people who say that the heaps of particles are bullshit?
I don't even remotely understand enough of that field, but basically the idea is that the particle guys name everything they see a new particle while in reality they only measure different wave-states or something like that. Kinda like saying there are 100 temperatures while there is only one temerature scale that goes from 1 to 100. As a result the particle guys would be able to generate an infinite number of particles that are basically all worthless.
Aeh - no.
But we got only the axiom: "God is omnipotent".
We don't have the axioms of logic listed.
Basically we got two theories - "God is omnipotent" and "Logic". Now by their very nature these two groups of axioms could pose a contradiction and cannot be used together to form a new set of axioms and to derive conclusions therefrom.
In mathematics you also cannot just blindly mix axioms from different fields.
There are two things: The self-contradicting statement of can he create something he cannot affect. This is the logic problem.
However the ability to give up omnipotence forever is no logic inconsistency. It would only be if you label it "indefinite omnipotence".
Preacher
Swabbie
Banned
Well, OK, but I did state that they don't believe Christ was the Messiah, and I already said that I can't apply the same criteria to Judaism as to Islam, for the reasons stated then...
--How?... Apparently, by disregarding (or altogether discarding) what He said while He was down here among us.
[Yeah, I know: "...but the Jews also disregarded what He said..". That may be true, but they never claimed him as one of their prophets-simply a great teacher: If you are calling someone a prophet, you'd best heed what he says will happen in the future (and Mohammed clearly didn't, or else there'd have been no Koran). On the other hand, if you only call him a great teacher, you need only care what he sez about the here and now. Secondly, plz remember again, I'm presenting the Christian perspective here, and the Bible makes it very clear to us that the Jews are to be regarded as our "elder brothers" in the faith, and it teaches that in the end times, the Jews will finally claim JC as Messiah.]
--Keeping in mind the fact that humans are sinful/imperfect, and so thus there are certainly some churches (and perhaps even entire denominations, sadly) that don't follow the Bible, what do you mean by that statement (or, was what I just said what you were referring to)?...
--I certainly agree that if you accept what you call the Petrine doctrine, then all the other deviations of the Catholic church (hereafter, "CC" for brevity) are pretty much allowed. What I have a problem with is that very doctrine itself. You said there's "tons" of scriptural support for it; I'd like to know where. The only place I know is the passage that the doctrine is drawn from (Matt 16:18-19). Where else is there?... And, Paul was hardly some "random" guy, but in any event, the Protestants don't take the view that he was God's highest authority on earth. His writings are referred to more often simply because of their sheer volume as represented in the canon of NT scripture, as compared to any other NT author. Fact is, Paul put Peter in his place when Peter was acting like a hypocrite in Antioch (Gal 2:11-15), and this scripture is found in/accepted by the CC in their canon. That right there pretty much shoots down the doctrine of papal infallibility, inasmuch as if Peter himself could screw up like that, how could his "descendants" be infallible? [Keep in mind, this was not the rash, wimpy Peter who put his foot in his mouth so often before the crucifixion, but the transformed, compassionate, mature church leader he became (as did all the apostles) after the resurrection/ascension. Even then he still wasn't perfect, as that incident showed...
--'Fraid not, bub. Islam drew from the Jewish scriptures, sure, but their account of OT events (and I've read it, so I'm talkin' firsthand knowledge here) is a completely different animal, esp. from the birth of Ishmael onwards. Whereas (as stated elsewhere), Christianity has the Jewish scriptures as a subset (the first half) of its own scriptures, so your assertion is invalid.
I follow your logic on the "refinement" premise you talk about (and no, I'm not personally offended, though the 'stool pigeons' remark was a bit much; and yes, Moses was/is considered to be a prophet.), but I gotta disagree that Islam is any kind of "refinement", and here's why: The central message of Judaism and Christianity is that there is hope and security in God. There is a day coming when God/Messiah will come/return to earth, and all those who have faithfully kept His laws (Jews) or believed in Messiah (Christians) will be with Him for eternity. This is possible because of the forgiveness of God, which can be obtained by atonement (Yom Kippur, for the Jew), or faith in Christ (for Christians). Islam has no provision for obtaining the forgiveness of Allah, or at least no way to be SURE that same has been obtained (well, except for dying in Holy War, mebbe). The Jew or Christian can die "knowing" their eternity is secure; the Muslim dies merely "hoping for the best". I'd hardly call that a 'refinement'...
Preacher, most protestant sects dont have any form of redemption or way to atone for your actions either, and no amount of faith will put you in heaven. See the vast majority of them believe in an idea that calvin put forward called "predestination". Predestination says that god has before birth determined whether or not you'll go to heaven or hell, so no matter what you do in life, your eternity is already predetermined, this is taken from something paul said in Romans.
And the point is that the Petrine doctorine can be debated by both sides, thus you cannot say that the catholics are in error, since you cannot disprove the petrine doctorine anymore than they can prove it, so rather you can say that you disagree with their interpretation of scripture, not that they violate it.
Islam accepts all the predecessors to it in the jewish and christian faiths, hence mohommed being the last prophet, with all the others being the jewish ones and Jesus.
And Q: really? i didnt realize it was only Shiite and not Sunni as well. Learn something everyday i guess.
And the point is that the Petrine doctorine can be debated by both sides, thus you cannot say that the catholics are in error, since you cannot disprove the petrine doctorine anymore than they can prove it, so rather you can say that you disagree with their interpretation of scripture, not that they violate it.
Islam accepts all the predecessors to it in the jewish and christian faiths, hence mohommed being the last prophet, with all the others being the jewish ones and Jesus.
And Q: really? i didnt realize it was only Shiite and not Sunni as well. Learn something everyday i guess.
Or more likely that you can't be omnipotent God or not. I think what needs to be done is to redefine what a God is.
And of course we come up with a specific scenario whcih cannot be resolved! The proof that root 2 is irrational has a similar result, which is why we can conclude that root 2 is irrational! Contradiction proofs work that way. For some statement x can we come up with at least one situation which complies to the initial assumptions but leads to a contradictory result. That initial assumption is thus wrong.
Newton didn't figure out quantum mechanics probably because during his time radiation had not been discovered and you can't exactly observe subatomic particles with your bare eyes. Logic on the other hand you can think about in your arm chair with some good coffee just as well in the 21st century as you can in the 11th. So not a lot you can 'miss' cause you don't have to physically observe anything. Did they have coffee in the 11th century? I don't think so.
Preacher
Swabbie
Banned
--Wrong, bub; they - both the CC and Protestants - do: It's referred to as the atoning death of Christ on the cross. Without that, Christianity itself wouldn't exist, or certainly wouldn't ever have "caught on" the way it has (It is, after all, the central tenet of the faith...). Faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross (and the repentance that naturally goes along with it) is all one needs; "good works" - which unfortunately, the CC emphasizes a bit too much - will not suffice. I could bring you many examples here, but only one should be necessary: The thief crucified with Jesus on the cross (Luke 23:40-43). This guy lived his whole life as a criminal/sinner, and when he was drawing his last breath, he repented of all his wrongs and asked Christ for mercy/forgiveness. JC assured him that he would be in heaven that very day...
--As for the whole predestination thing, that is a subject that could generate a whole 'nother thread like this one on its own; so I can hardly address it adequately here. I will say this much, though: Assuming it's true (and most of Christendom believes it is), God Himself is still the only One who knows whether a given individual is "written in the Lamb's book of Life" or not. Therefore, it behooves you and I to do whatever we can to meet the "entrance requirements" to get to heaven (see above paragraph). In other words, if a way to get to heaven is given, and those who take that route are guaranteed a ticket there, then TAKE THAT ROUTE!...
Sure, He has predetermined it. But He also was thoughtful enough to outline for us and guarantee the route through which it would be achieved, and that is what the Good News of the gospel (the word"gospel" translates into "good news", BTW) is all about; telling man how he could be sure whether he'll get there or not. Think of it this way: Teachers and professors of mine have guaranteed that I would pass their course if I show up & pay attention in class, read the texts, study hard, and pass all the exams/quizzes. Yet, it was still up to me to do these things; and sure enough, when I did all these things, I passed...
--As for the Petrine doctrine, I already shot one obvious hole in it; here's something else for y'all to chew on:
The central passage to the Petrine doctrine is Matt 16:13-19, which reads:
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
The CC interprets this the way that it would appear, at first glance in English, is meant: That Peter is the "rock" upon which JC would build the church (and thus the papacy, etc...). The problem with this view is that the original text is in Greek, and is not so straightforward in meaning as the English makes it appear. The definite article in Greek ("this", in English) does not attach to the 'rock' of Peter. The Protestant position is that that "this rock" refers not to Peter, a man, but rather refers instead to the confession of faith that Peter had just finished making. When viewed in light of the rest of scripture, and the history of Christendom since NT times, this is the more likely rendering of the two. Think about it: The church was not built on the foundation of a single man, but on the foundation of the faith of all men who have believed; including and since the 12 apostles. Indeed, similar could be said for the "church" of Judaism and of Islam: they are built not on what Jacob/Mohammed said, but on the collective faith of their adherents at any given point in time.
Inasmuch as the definite article is (ironically enough) vague - not attaching itself to either Peter or his declaration of faith - I will concede to you that error cannot definitively be proven from the text... However, I still maintain that the overall context of history and common sense certainly indicate that the CC's interpretation is, at least, suspect...
--Um, in case you forgot, Jesus was a Jew. Second, none of what you said above alters the fact that they do NOT share scriptures in common with Jews/Christians, whereas the latter two do share a common scriptural basis.
TCSTigersClaw
Greek Special Forces B' Company "Naoussa" 2007-200
Eeeem........since Iam from Greece,I will say something...
"Peter" is the English "version" of Petros.Petros is a greek name and means Rock....
Anyway what I wanted to say is that the text was in Ancient Greek.Not Modern Greek,not to be confused.Most of us know ancient Greek here (Greece not CIC),but it used to be a very very very complicated language cause it had to with maths too.So even now there are lots of meanings.Some say that ,some say something else.....well......no one knows exactly.But what you said Preacher is the most em....I dont know the word....em popular explaination,if you know what I mean
"Peter" is the English "version" of Petros.Petros is a greek name and means Rock....
Anyway what I wanted to say is that the text was in Ancient Greek.Not Modern Greek,not to be confused.Most of us know ancient Greek here (Greece not CIC),but it used to be a very very very complicated language cause it had to with maths too.So even now there are lots of meanings.Some say that ,some say something else.....well......no one knows exactly.But what you said Preacher is the most em....I dont know the word....em popular explaination,if you know what I mean
Preacher
Swabbie
Banned
--Yeah, I knew that (that's why we call our fossil fuels - oil/gasoline - "petroleum based"); I thought of putting it in my post, but I didn't want to confuse matters more. Peter was the most stable (thus, "rock-like") of the apostles, so JC referred to him metaphorically as the "rock". Still, it comes down to whether the "rock" of faith was meant, or the "rock" of Peter, and the former makes more sense than the latter. (I figured I might hear from you on this post, since it deals w/ the Greek language
)--Yup, I hear ya on that And, I would say that the reason it's that way is 'cuz, in light of all the facts, it's the most sensible interpretation (as I'd said in the post).
TCSTigersClaw
Greek Special Forces B' Company "Naoussa" 2007-200
I come "off-topic" rarely.If I hadnt read your posts here,I would have the same "bad" opinion for you.
When I first saw one of your posts with all these "cuz","aint" etc I thought you were a street punk (I think thats the word
) .Isnt that the English Street language ?
No offense.I like you .You are in my buddy list
When I first saw one of your posts with all these "cuz","aint" etc I thought you were a street punk (I think thats the word
) .Isnt that the English Street language ?No offense.I like you .You are in my buddy list
TCSTigersClaw
Greek Special Forces B' Company "Naoussa" 2007-200
There are lots of other examples too.Looks like you are a highly sophisticated (<---spelling?) guy Preacher.
Ironic: "sophisticated" is based on a greek word but I cant spell it in English
