Author Topic: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"  (Read 5167 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
John 1:1

Quote
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
 

This verse is commonly interpreted as "The Word" meaning or being Jesus.

I present to you why it CANNOT be so even within the context of the Bible...

In the Hebrew bible, Genesis 1:1 it is Elohim that creates the "heavens and the earth"
as the SAME STORY continues...

Genesis 1:26

Quote
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...

I'm pretty sure we all know about Elohim and the pantheon of gods at this point... It is clear to anyone not practicing mental gymnastics that the "Us" and "Our" in this case are the gods in that pantheon. It is important to note that during the creation story and before "sin" the "Our" and creation story refers to the elohim, not the trinity.

Now, in popular Christian theology, Jesus is said to have come to redeem mankind of its sinful nature. Thus at the time of creation and even right up until the point of initial sin there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred. There also would be no "Word" meaning bible or books of the bible either, as it had not been written, nor are there poeple to write and read it.

So, I ask. What is this "Word that was with god?"

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10401
  • Darwins +185/-8
  • Gender: Male
Simple man.  God was showing His street cred...WORD!!!
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
You know, that didnt even cross my mind...

Old Jehova was actually a New York hip hop head, and none of this had to do with Yeshua... Hov simply said, "Word, son" and out of that we get a story about a book, sin, prophets, and a petty criminal on a cross... good lawd

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male

Excellent question Gawd

How about this.  Just a little something that I threw together : - )

'The Word' is equated with the 'Logos' of Greek philosophy.  Another usage of the term 'Logos' is language or discourse.

'The Word' can be understood to be either language or the principle behind language.  Language allows us to differentiate between things.  If we couldn't differentiate then there would just be one big nameless whole.  But after language we have 'things' because we give aspects of our experience (consciousness) names.  We even name ourselves 'I' and this 'I' somehow seems to separate us from the rest of reality.  So our very selves depend on a name.

1. So through language (esp naming) all things were made!  A universe of things (matter) was constituted.


Language also differentiates humans from animals.  Each of us takes on the name 'I' at some early stage of our lives.  And both OT and NT suggest that 'I AM' is the name of God.

2. So in this way we are made in his image.


So the first name, the first word, what could it be ?  I suppose it would have to be the name of God wouldn't it !?

3. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Jesus is alleged to have said 'before Abraham was I am' - and they took up stones to throw at him because he was taking on God's name.

The significance of God's name -

Every statement can be doubted except one.  The entire universe and even my body may be a dream, an illusion, a trick.  But I cannot doubt the dreamer.  If I doubt my own consciousness then this act requires an 'I' (consciousness) in order to do so.  Thus doubting the statement proves it true!.  Is there any other statement that is proved true by doubting it ?  Is it coincidence that the only statement that we can be certain of is 'I am' ?

This analysis can go on to explain how humans separate from God by taking on a self (a personal 'I') which can be equated to 'original sin' passed on from generation to generation without thinking.  I take God's name but I assign it to a separate individual self.  I attempt to separate myself from the rest of reality.  Now, the world is a threat to me.  It can harm me.  Others are now my competitors.

The self is associated with selfishness while one of the core elements of religions is to promote selflessness, unity, self denial.  So what happens if we become fully selfless ?  The individual dissolves and the whole is restored.  Unity with God - the one true self - the whole - the source of all consciousness and also the nsmr of consciousness as well - 'I AM'.

Offline Dominic

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
  • Darwins +6/-9
  • Gender: Male
(comtinued)

Just to add a bit that I missed -

4. 'The word became flesh and dwelt amongst us'

The simplest interpretation is 'I AM' (God's name) came into the physical world as Jesus.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Darwins +406/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Well, one thing this passage tells us is that "the Word of God" is not some book scribed by human hands or any mutterings of humans in fancy costumes.  Rather (if you believe the passage) it is Jesus himself,[1] the "harmonizing proportion"[2] that unites the heavenly and earthly realms of Platonic/Pythagorean metaphysics.

At any rate, the Prologue of John's Gospel would arguably represent the Ur-Bible Contradiction, as it contradicts the very idea of "The Bible" as revered by modern Protestant fundamentalists.
 1. Or perhaps a spiritual principle or divine intermediary or aspect of the divine that at some point embodied itself in, or as, Jesus.  Early Christians had a wide range of beliefs about who and what Jesus was, ranging from a Jewish messiah concept of an ordinary man specially empowered by Yahweh, through the various flavors of Gnosticism, many of which rejected the idea that Jesus was ever a flesh-and-blood human.
 2. "Logos" had this meaning as well--we get our words for "logic" and 'logarithm' from it.  Its Latin equivalent is the root for "ratio" (mathematical harmonizing proportion) and "rationality."  See David Fideler's Jesus Christ: Sun of God for an extensive and thorough discussion of the Logos concept in Greco-Roman philosophy and how the Christians took over the mathematical and sacred geometric "canon" created by Pythagoras and his successors.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Excellent question Gawd
How about this.  Just a little something that I threw together : - )
And it shows – please take more care in future.

Quote
'The Word' is equated with the 'Logos' of Greek philosophy.  Another usage of the term 'Logos' is language or discourse.

'The Word' can be understood to be either language or the principle behind language.
Thus as the meaning is uncertain, anything you conclude will be equally uncertain and unreliable if wrong.

Quote
Language allows us to differentiate between things.  If we couldn't differentiate then there would just be one big nameless whole.
No – there would be a lot of separate things without names. Imagine you see two small but different insects, merely because you personally do not know their names, it does not mean they are the same.

Quote
But after language we have 'things' because we give aspects of our experience (consciousness) names.
No, this can’t be so. ‘Things’ must come before names.

Your mistake reminds me of this:

Adam is given the job of naming all the animals. One day, God asks him, "Why did you call that one a Hippopotamus?"

and Adam replied, "Because it looks like one."

Quote
We even name ourselves 'I' and this 'I' somehow seems to separate us from the rest of reality.  So our very selves depend on a name.
Can I suggest an elementary grammar book, where you will find that “I” is a pronoun – i.e. something that stands in place of a noun or name.

A personal name is what we English speakers call, "a proper noun".

Quote
1. So through language (esp naming) all things were made!
This is a complete non-sequitur. Think about it a moment. First we see things and then we describe them by one or more words.

Quote
A universe of things (matter) was constituted.

Any connection between your reality and that of the rest of human kind is purely coincidental.

Quote
Language also differentiates humans from animals.
This is misinformation, pure and simple. I don’t know how else to put it. There is ample evidence for language in lower orders – you seem to be able to speak.

Quote
Each of us takes on the name 'I' at some early stage of our lives.

You didn’t read what I said about nouns and pronouns, did you?

Quote
And both OT and NT suggest that 'I AM' is the name of God.

Yes, ancient Hebrews were well known for speaking English. That aside, do you think it is possible that some person gave him that name? You know, just invented it as a “stage name” – something like “Sledge Riprock” or “Max Headroom”?  He's also know by a few dozen other names.

Quote
2. So in this way we are made in his image.
So… He makes us -> he tells us his name -> his name is “I am” -> the personal pronoun is “I” so …
THERE  MUST BE A GOD!!!!111!!!

And what on earth do you mean by "In His Image"?

Quote
So the first name, the first word, what could it be ?  I suppose it would have to be the name of God wouldn't it !?
No, it was probably the pre-palaeolithic equivalent of “Ow!” when you dropped a rock on your foot.

Quote
Jesus is alleged to have said 'before Abraham was I am'

Jesus is ‘alleged’ to have said many things – I think you are looking for:
John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”


Dominic,
If you want to progress the cause of mankind; if you want to help people; if you want to make the world a better place – please try thinking critically about what you are writing.

Thank you.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 05:52:30 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Sarevok

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Now, in popular Christian theology, Jesus is said to have come to redeem mankind of its sinful nature. Thus at the time of creation and even right up until the point of initial sin there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred. There also would be no "Word" meaning bible or books of the bible either, as it had not been written, nor are there poeple to write and read it.
I think this logic is flawed (I maybe proved wrong though).
You assume that for something to exist, it must have a purpose ("there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred"). Why must this be the case. Someone can probably prove me wrong, but what purpose does Mercury (the planet) have to exist? If we can not determine a purpose, does that then mean it doesn't exist, according to your reasoning?

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Now, in popular Christian theology, Jesus is said to have come to redeem mankind of its sinful nature. Thus at the time of creation and even right up until the point of initial sin there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred. There also would be no "Word" meaning bible or books of the bible either, as it had not been written, nor are there poeple to write and read it.
I think this logic is flawed (I maybe proved wrong though).
You assume that for something to exist, it must have a purpose ("there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred"). Why must this be the case. Someone can probably prove me wrong, but what purpose does Mercury (the planet) have to exist? If we can not determine a purpose, does that then mean it doesn't exist, according to your reasoning?
You are generally correct, but specifically wrong.

Things dont need a purpose to exist. However, I am not making that assumption, rather parroting Christian belief. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son so that whoever believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life" seems to map out Jesus' purpose quite well. And I'm pretty sure thats supposed to be the verse OF ALL verses.

And theres more:
“For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10)

 “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost” (Matthew 18:11)

 “Just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:28)

 “But He said to them, ‘I must preach the kingdom of God to the other cities also, for I was sent for this purpose’” (Luke 4:43)


and so on and so forth
It is not MY doing of giving purpose to things that need none, that is the work of religion. (see "what is the purpose or meaning of life?")

Now lets put all this into context, I know how Christians love context... Jesus' real name is Yeshua. This translates into some version of "The Lords Salvation." I ask you, "salvation" for who and for what if there are no humans who have sinned and need salvation? Why would a god in heaven have a name that means "The Lords Salvation?" That name strictly relates to humans AFTER supposed sin. Had he existed even in concept before sin his name would be more like Yahweh's... "I Am" or "I exist" or something similar. It wouldnt relate strictly to human existence.

As for Mercury the planet, apparently its purpose is to declare the glory of god!
Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2013, 06:56:32 AM by The Gawd »

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2519
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Now, in popular Christian theology, Jesus is said to have come to redeem mankind of its sinful nature. Thus at the time of creation and even right up until the point of initial sin there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred. There also would be no "Word" meaning bible or books of the bible either, as it had not been written, nor are there poeple to write and read it.
I think this logic is flawed (I maybe proved wrong though).
You assume that for something to exist, it must have a purpose ("there is no purpose for a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" to even exist as sin has not occurred"). Why must this be the case. Someone can probably prove me wrong, but what purpose does Mercury (the planet) have to exist? If we can not determine a purpose, does that then mean it doesn't exist, according to your reasoning?

Ah, yes, well.... Sure the bible says Jesus came to save people from sins, but John's Gospel goes further to say that Jesus had always been with the father and his coming was his transference from immaterial god to human flesh. So Jesus came to the earth for a purpose but he was, before that, part of the necessary being that is god and for which a purpose is not required.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Darwins +406/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Even though technically Jesus doesn't have to have a purpose to exist, it sure was convenient that Yahweh was/had a sacrificial "Son" handy.  Imagine if he'd been a Duality with just Father and Holy Spirit.  "Well, I can't go, because I'm the one whose wrath the sacrifice is supposed to appease, and I can't send Him, 'cause crucifying the Holy Ghost would be like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.  Whelp.  Guess the Devil wins."
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Nick

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10401
  • Darwins +185/-8
  • Gender: Male
Had not thought of it like that.  Yeah, God must have known forever that he would need the "boy".  Kind of messes big time with that free will thing?  Also, kind of gives Eve a bum rap ... kind of like Judas.

I don't want to complain but it appears we got the "special ed" of God(s) in the draw for this planet.
Yo, put that in your pipe and smoke it.  Quit ragging on my Lord.

Tide goes in, tide goes out !!!

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2519
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Had not thought of it like that.  Yeah, God must have known forever that he would need the "boy".  Kind of messes big time with that free will thing?  Also, kind of gives Eve a bum rap ... kind of like Judas.

I' not sure it messes with free will exactly. If we view the imaginary god as sitting outwith time - in what we might call eternity - we can expect that it would be able to see the whole real of time as a single glance, as if everything is happening together. Thus, as it is creating the world and the people  - the beginning of time so to speak - he can also see forward in time to see what the people make of life and see that they go wrong and sin along happily. So, without affecting the free will of any individual he can see something will be needed to fix it.

If anyone has free will problems, though, it is the god. He has to force himself to be born as a man (with himself as father as well!) so that he can be reconciled to the people by giving his life to himself. So really, after he saw people sin, his free will was lost!

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6465
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
The story requires sin. Otherwise there would be nothing to talk about.

Thousands of years ago someone got his toga in a wad because his wife cheated on him or someone stole his wheel or something and here we are, stuck with a story that makes no sense as anything but fiction and yet millions think it is the truth personified.

Clearly we haven't evolved quite enough.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Sarevok

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Now lets put all this into context, I know how Christians love context... Jesus' real name is Yeshua. This translates into some version of "The Lords Salvation." I ask you, "salvation" for who and for what if there are no humans who have sinned and need salvation? Why would a god in heaven have a name that means "The Lords Salvation?" That name strictly relates to humans AFTER supposed sin. Had he existed even in concept before sin his name would be more like Yahweh's... "I Am" or "I exist" or something similar. It wouldnt relate strictly to human existence.
You are extrapolating Jesus' human name back onto he's God form, thus accusing him of only being around for a sacrifice. If you instead take the view that before having the name Jesus given to him whilst on Earth, he was called "The Son", then this doesn't make any sort of implication that that was he's sole purpose.

As for Mercury the planet, apparently its purpose is to declare the glory of god!
Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
I was merely working on what you seemed to be claiming, that Jesus only exists because he has a purpose, and was then asking what Mars' purpose was. But I'm assuming this is purely having a go at what I said.

Even though technically Jesus doesn't have to have a purpose to exist, it sure was convenient that Yahweh was/had a sacrificial "Son" handy.  Imagine if he'd been a Duality with just Father and Holy Spirit.  "Well, I can't go, because I'm the one whose wrath the sacrifice is supposed to appease, and I can't send Him, 'cause crucifying the Holy Ghost would be like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.  Whelp.  Guess the Devil wins."
I'd hardly call him a "sacrificial son". I mean, they 3 of them co-existed from before the universe, and he didn't sacrifice him as you put it, he chose to let he's son come to earth, and be sacrificed for the sins of human kind.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6465
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
I'd hardly call him a "sacrificial son". I mean, they 3 of them co-existed from before the universe, and he didn't sacrifice him as you put it, he chose to let he's son come to earth, and be sacrificed for the sins of human kind.

I have to ask, Sarevok. Why can't you see it? This story is so obviously human in origin. What sort of omnipotent god puts two newbies into a paradise, allows satan to wander in, gets pissed when the happy couple make one mistake when egged on by the bad guy, kicks them out, and then they go forth and multiply. Into an obnoxious group of humans that piss off the guy that can foresee everything so he drowns them all except for one family, who is so unimpressed with the death and  mayhem they witnessed that they are right back at the bad guy stuff within weeks of landing, and who consider god so irrelevant that three generations later some are building a tower to heaven and there are already enough of them to let god give them all new languages and send them off to the four corners of the earth or whatever so they won't be able to communicate. When all they have to do is whip out some more folks over the next three generations and whammo, they have enough to build another tower. But that plot line is passé by then but that's okay because you've got Abraham and Job and Moses and other things to do while folks run around in their various sin cities doing the horizontal mambo or whatever and continually pissing off the big guy so down comes the kid to go through the sacrifice ritual and bang!, a path to righteousness is created. And it all applies today. Two thousand years after the kid promised he would return. Like, you know, within the lifetime of those he told he would return.

Most religions have a moral component. Do this or that right or the god of poison ivy will rub leaves all over your private parts. Don't anger the gods by doing that or a few of them will come down and boil you in oil and serve you with lentils. Religions contain advise, moral lessons, guidelines and just plain old hints and tips on how to decorate your hut for under 50 shekels. And they all insist they are right and the rest are false.

Coincidence? I don't think so. Each one is made up, and each one exists for the specific needs of that particular group. When christianity spread far and wide, the groups went into customization mode because goats fucking in front of striped sticks and the fear of iron chariots didn't apply any more. Catholicism begat Lutheranism which begat Calvinism which begat the First Immaculate Church of Rattlesnakes and Root Beer and Jesus, and 30,000+ subdivisions later one of them ended up as you.

A real god doesn't need drama. Humans do. A real god doesn't need to staple his kid to sticks. He just says "Golly gee, perhaps I wasn't clear. Here, let me clarify with a new book, illustrated by Michelangelo, with movie rights sold to Paramount."  Relying on goat herders and camel jockeys to get his word out was about as wise as letting first graders set national gun policy. Oh wait, they're actually qualified now. Nevermind.

Anyway, the Jesus thing is just one more in a silly string of tales designed to impress or control or scare or all of the above the people directly under the influence of the clergy of the time. Not because god casually mentioned that they should do so, but because they themselves decided to, whether on their own or because their overlords told them to.

This is human all the way down. None of it required a god in any way, shape or form. If it had, none of it would have happened  that way. I understand that you are impressed with the bible, but this is because you have been told it is true. Not because it actually is.

A competent god would have given competent instructions to beings that he competently constructed and competently taught. A competent god would allow for variation, stay involved with his creation and show his love rather than just mouthing the words invisibly. A competent god would insist on clergy that was close to as moral as he is and use his infinite wisdom to bestow a bit of understanding in himself when confronted with the occasional rebellious soul. A competent god would have competent angels, a viable storyline and an interest in those whom he is forcing to exist in his gated community.

There is little that is inherently moral in evolved beings. However, we are smart enough to label things right and wrong and certainly some of us are going to make up stories that teach lessons pertinent to the social order of things. At times they will take on religious overtones as gods and other forces are introduced to explain certain otherwise strange plot lines. Civilizations and tribes have been doing this for many thousands of years. It is to be expected. What is not to be expected is that the same tripe will be swallowed over and over by generation after generation for thousands of years. Except we didn't evolve well enough to avoid self-delusion and/or fantasies.

Jesus didn't die for our sins, but millions have died for his story. God didn't create the heavens and the earth in seven days, but millions have died believing or died killing because they thought that to be true. Jesus didn't do his zombie routine, but many millions more have perished with that thought, either believing or fearing it. And even today, there are those believers who would kill me on the spot if they had the chance, merely because I am not as gullible as they are.

The lack of perfection in humans comes from a myriad of sources, biological, social, psychological, etc. But none of them come from one silly and naïve young lady who dared to eat of the tree of knowledge, and none of us have been saved by a mythical forsaken son.

I'm sure if you've read this you are either assuming the your god is testing you or that this is satan tempting you. Religious people keep their world small enough to fit into and fill the thought centers of the brain, thereby disallowing anything original or unique or true from taking up valuable space. I get so tired of hearing ten thousand different excuses for every frickin' verse in the bible. We get theist after theist here telling us their truth, and they never, and I mean never, agree with each other enough for us to see a pattern. Unless you're into Jackson Pollack.

You are here telling us your version. mrhaberling is here telling us his. You know who else has been here? BladeoftheImmortal, Jeremy0, SHIN KARI. joebowers, Frank, TheGodYouForsaken, holybuckets, SwasyesGhost, Jstwebbrowsing, Johnny Spunkypants, JesusOnlySaves, Iloveyou, meconopsilo, Olivianus, etc., etc., etc. That's just in the last 6 or 8 months. That's not even all of them. And guess what. No two of you agree on enough to make your alibi stick.

I consider this inconsistency to be a sure sign of a poorly written and completely false story. No god, no matter how infinite he is, can come up with that many versions of himself. Let alone that many excuses for all the inconsistencies.

/rant







Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2519
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male

I'd hardly call him a "sacrificial son". I mean, they 3 of them co-existed from before the universe, and he didn't sacrifice him as you put it, he chose to let he's son come to earth, and be sacrificed for the sins of human kind.

Well, I'm not so sure. Christian teaching is that the three persons of the trinity are just one god (so as to keep the monotheistic belief system) so, in a sense there was juts one god before the universe and afterwards too.

Then again, the all-knowing god knew from the beginning what was going to happen yet he juts let it happen until a point when he got angry. He then got so angry that he demanded that the only way people could get rid of their sin was if he sacrificed himself to himself to get rid of his anger so Jesus was born and did just that. Jesus then, being 'very God of very God,'1 gave up his life to himself and everything was OK again.

That's about it, isn't it, Sarevok?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Quote
Excellent question Gawd

How about this.  Just a little something that I threw together : - )

'The Word' is equated with the 'Logos' of Greek philosophy.  Another usage of the term 'Logos' is language or discourse.

'The Word' can be understood to be either language or the principle behind language.  Language allows us to differentiate between things.  If we couldn't differentiate then there would just be one big nameless whole.  But after language we have 'things' because we give aspects of our experience (consciousness) names.  We even name ourselves 'I' and this 'I' somehow seems to separate us from the rest of reality.  So our very selves depend on a name.

1. So through language (esp naming) all things were made!  A universe of things (matter) was constituted.
Language is HOW we describe things not distinguish between them. Even before things have names or descriptions they exist. The "I" doesnt separate us at all, just describes or makes reference to you w/o using your name.


Quote
Language also differentiates humans from animals.  Each of us takes on the name 'I' at some early stage of our lives.  And both OT and NT suggest that 'I AM' is the name of God.
What about animals that can use sign language? Can we assume they use the "I" as well? Such as the apes in the following link...there is a debate on whether or not the apes have mastered the language, but there is no question of whether they used it. This would destroy this point, no? It also would show consciousness in animals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)

Quote
2. So in this way we are made in his image.


So the first name, the first word, what could it be ?  I suppose it would have to be the name of God wouldn't it !?
If you want to throw all the other names to the side. It sounds, to me, like someone trying to piece a story together backwards. Why would Yahweh need so many names? As you stated earlier we use language to describe differences. Why would we need to differenciate between Yahweh and anything else? What does "God" need with a name? Think about that one.

Quote
3. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Jesus is alleged to have said 'before Abraham was I am' - and they took up stones to throw at him because he was taking on God's name.

The significance of God's name -

Every statement can be doubted except one.  The entire universe and even my body may be a dream, an illusion, a trick.  But I cannot doubt the dreamer.  If I doubt my own consciousness then this act requires an 'I' (consciousness) in order to do so.  Thus doubting the statement proves it true!.  Is there any other statement that is proved true by doubting it ?  Is it coincidence that the only statement that we can be certain of is 'I am' ?
Dont quite follow the logic here. Doubting whether Jesus thinks or says he's "God" doesnt make it so. If I stated I were the POTUS, you doubting it would not make it true. If you are simply stating that we exist then I have no reason to doubt it. Even if existence were a dream, we would exist in the context of that dream.

Quote
This analysis can go on to explain how humans separate from God by taking on a self (a personal 'I') which can be equated to 'original sin' passed on from generation to generation without thinking.  I take God's name but I assign it to a separate individual self.  I attempt to separate myself from the rest of reality.  Now, the world is a threat to me.  It can harm me.  Others are now my competitors.
Again, if animals use the "I" your premise is proven incorrect, no?

Quote
The self is associated with selfishness while one of the core elements of religions is to promote selflessness, unity, self denial.  So what happens if we become fully selfless ?  The individual dissolves and the whole is restored.  Unity with God - the one true self - the whole - the source of all consciousness and also the nsmr of consciousness as well - 'I AM'.
With this I completely disagree. There is nothing at all selfless about proclaiming that the entire universe was made with people in mind. There is nothing selfless about thinking humans were given dominion over animals by a supreme being. I'd also state that one of the main tenets of religions, at least the Abrahamic religions, is to promote division amongst people. The Holy books of the religions maintain a story of "Us vs Them". The idea of "self denial" , IMO, is a tool used to control you. If they frame things that are natural to you as inherently evil (sex being the main one) then they can use guilt as a weapon to make you think you are evil, and thus in need of their remedy...which of course comes with obedience and usually a monetary price that is limitless...

However, if what youre saying is "The Word" simply means "I AM" and you want to shoehorn Jesus into the I AM statement based upon the passage you quoted you still have to deal with the issues I raised in the OP.

[edited to fix the quotes]
« Last Edit: January 12, 2013, 07:08:26 PM by The Gawd »

Offline Sarevok

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
I'd hardly call him a "sacrificial son". I mean, they 3 of them co-existed from before the universe, and he didn't sacrifice him as you put it, he chose to let he's son come to earth, and be sacrificed for the sins of human kind.
<snip> /rant
Quick question, do you want a response? Or are you just venting at me?

I'm also saddened that Gawd didn't respond to my post.

Well, I'm not so sure. Christian teaching is that the three persons of the trinity are just one god (so as to keep the monotheistic belief system) so, in a sense there was juts one god before the universe and afterwards too.
One God, Three entities, yes. No, I can't describe it very well.

Then again, the all-knowing god knew from the beginning what was going to happen yet he juts let it happen until a point when he got angry. He then got so angry that he demanded that the only way people could get rid of their sin was if he sacrificed himself to himself to get rid of his anger so Jesus was born and did just that. Jesus then, being 'very God of very God,'1 gave up his life to himself and everything was OK again.
:-\ Did you actually read the OT at all? Sacrifices have always been required to cover sins. Jesus sacrifice covered all sins, hence no more sacrifices are needed.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6465
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
I'd hardly call him a "sacrificial son". I mean, they 3 of them co-existed from before the universe, and he didn't sacrifice him as you put it, he chose to let he's son come to earth, and be sacrificed for the sins of human kind.
<snip> /rant
Quick question, do you want a response? Or are you just venting at me?

Nope, I wasn't venting. The /rant thing was sort of a joke because I do tend to get long at times. That's not to say that I was one of the three happiest people on the planet at the time. Further discussion is up to you.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
You are extrapolating Jesus' human name back onto he's God form, thus accusing him of only being around for a sacrifice. If you instead take the view that before having the name Jesus given to him whilst on Earth, he was called "The Son", then this doesn't make any sort of implication that that was he's sole purpose.
Does a "son" not imply a mother? What Ive done is use the name the bible gave us, and the purpose the bible gave us. You have not addressed the initial problem.

Quote
I was merely working on what you seemed to be claiming, that Jesus only exists because he has a purpose, and was then asking what Mars' purpose was. But I'm assuming this is purely having a go at what I said.
the fact that Mercury or Mars or any other planet has no purpose that we can tell works against your general POV, no? Asking what Mars' purpose is like asking the meaning of life.


Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4366
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Sacrifices have always been required to cover sins.

Why?
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2519
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Sacrifices have always been required to cover sins.

Why?

Because the originators of religion made something out of creating sins for which a sacrifice was required and the system multiplied until there was a large class of priestly people in Israel all dependent on the food and things brought in for sacrifices. It was the way the system worked.

Thus, when stories about Jesus started and the writers had to consider why Jesus was killed, sacrifice was the way to go - a cleansing sacrifice to blot out men's sins. It juts follows a known way of working in the older religion and was thus understandable to the people they were trying to convert.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • Darwins +406/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Sacrifices have always been required to cover sins. Jesus sacrifice covered all sins, hence no more sacrifices are needed.

Where did these rules come from?  Did Yahweh make them up (i.e., he could have chosen some other 'required' method of 'covering sins,' or just not created 'Sin' as a metaphysical essence needing covering in the first place)?  Or is he subject to them also, so that creating the ancient Hebrew system followed by sending Jesus as a sacrifice was his only option?  If the latter, then who decided on those particular rules?
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6465
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Sacrifices have always been required to cover sins. Jesus sacrifice covered all sins, hence no more sacrifices are needed.

A loving god that requires so much as one ant to be squished under one boot on one sidewalk is obviously a fraud.

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Sarevok

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Does a "son" not imply a mother? What Ive done is use the name the bible gave us, and the purpose the bible gave us. You have not addressed the initial problem.
As a description yes, as a title, no. Members of the Catholic clergy are refereed to as Father, but that doesn't mean they are fathers.
The initial problem you propose is, in my interpretation "John says that in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Since Jesus wasn't needed until a sacrifice was needed, hence he's name, what was this Word being?". So, my response would be, "It is Jesus. Yes, he's earth name usually equates to coming to save, but he's original name does not imply this, so he wasn't created out of necessity"

the fact that Mercury or Mars or any other planet has no purpose that we can tell works against your general POV, no? Asking what Mars' purpose is like asking the meaning of life.
I would simply say that it was for us to study/observe. I sometimes give an example of an ant farm. You don't just stick ants in an ant farm with nothing to do, you usually add dirt, leaves, twigs, so they have something to do. God created the rest of the universe, so we would have thing to study/learn.
The analogy is flawed, since we didn't create the ants, but I hope it gets my point across.

Why?
Because God is loving and just. God loves us, and wants us to be with him, but he is also just, which means he requires justice for sins. This was originally achieved through animal sacrifice, and is now achieved through Jesus' sacrifice. If a judge had their child brought before them, and they dismissed the case because they loved their son, would that be a fair/just judge, or a bias one. Point being, God doesn't simply forgive what we do as the judge did, he requires justice for the wrong things we did.

Where did these rules come from?  Did Yahweh make them up (i.e., he could have chosen some other 'required' method of 'covering sins,' or just not created 'Sin' as a metaphysical essence needing covering in the first place)?
Your first part is correct, so I've omitted the second part for space.
If by making them up you imply the same way he made up the laws of the universe, yes. I didn't want to spout this, but I will for the sake of argument, "For the wages of sin is death"(Rom6:23), sin causes death. As a result, death/sacrifice is needed to save us from death. That is why the Jews needed to perform animal sacrifices, to cover their sins. That is also why Jesus came to the earth, to cover all of man's sins, once and for all.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
As a description yes, as a title, no. Members of the Catholic clergy are refereed to as Father, but that doesn't mean they are fathers.
I think the terms that were used by the pious were "My Heavenly Father = God and "my earthly father" = natural father. "my spiritual father" thus making the distinction whilst at the same time keeping to Jesus's strange command.

Quote
The initial problem you propose is, in my interpretation "John says that in the beginning was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Since Jesus wasn't needed until a sacrifice was needed, hence his name, what was this Word being?". So, my response would be, "It is Jesus. Yes, he's earth name usually equates to coming to save, but he's original name does not imply this, so he wasn't created out of necessity"
I'm not at all sure that what you are trying to say is Catholic dogma. You suggest that Jesus was created. This is to deny the Trinity, which is for you an unforgivable mortal sin; for me it is common sense.

Quote
for the sake of argument, "For the wages of sin is death"(Rom6:23), sin causes death. As a result, death/sacrifice is needed to save us from death. That is why the Jews needed to perform animal sacrifices, to cover their sins.
No, not entirely. There were sin offerings but the majority of sacrifices (animal) were simply to feed the priests by propitiating the various gods (the Elohim); this point is made in (IIRC) Jeremiah when Yahweh allows sacrifice to Himself.

Quote
That is also why Jesus came to the earth, to cover all of man's sins, once and for all.
Again, this is not entirely correct. I suggest you consider the second explicit human sacrifice in the Bible:

2Ki:3:26: And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not.
2Ki:3:27: Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. [Ed. GB - to Chemosh, the God of the Moabites]  And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

and the story of Jephthah: Judges:11:31-40, which is the first human sacrifice to Yahweh, God of War.

You will note that if you wanted to impress and horrify an Israelite, you would sacrifice a human.

Given this tradition, the myth then became that Christ was God's son, and, in the same way that the king of Moab horrified and impressed the attacking Israelites; in the same way in which the solemnity of a promise to God was depicted in Numbers, then the legend (and that is all that it is) arose that God gave His Son for some purpose. The purpose was invented later.

You will note that the Gospel of Mark does not have the resurrection and is generally regarded as being the most reliable.

You will note that Israel did not abandon Judaism - so God's Plan went wrong.  So what was that all about then?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12478
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
"In the begiining God had multiple personality disorder, then after creating everything in a matter of days he found he was schizophrenic. Then before he became a genocidal tyrant he cried a lot, and promoted incest amongst His flock."

That's Biblegod. Show me how it isn't?

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6465
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Nam

I'll keep this short  ;)

You forgot paranoid. And you forgot his phobia re: iron chariots.

The dude was MESSED UP!

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.