while in Islam a Jesus character seemingly identical in key ways to certain heretical "gospel" texts (that happen to predate the Koran by centuries) is part of a grand bait and switch, where it's a deception, that Jesus didn't die on the Cross.
Its been a while since I left muzzie school but that doesnt sound right. Pretty sure that, at the end of the day, Jesus was still considered a prophet so I wouldn't really call it a "bait and switch".
Christianity, iirc, (as well as judaism) according to koran, was essentially failed gospels. The teachings, translated ultimately by mortals, were misconstrued and lead to a faith that was deemed incapable of sustaining itself past the mortal death of the prophets who conveyed them. To Islam, Christians were supposed to see the resurrection as an act done by the grace of allah, and avoiding misinterpretations is the reason mohammed's miracles tended to be self contained when he was alone (like the night journey or when he was read his first verse of the koran by an angel)
Again, its been a really long time since I read a lick of the koran or anything so if theres points im misremembering, I wouldnt even argue against it.
For second time - read about it at least on google, because probably you will not even get how the math for this works so I will not waste my time to wrote you about Feymann or Casimir works. QVS isn't about lack of particles moron.
Affter that read about why virtual particles are present in QVS. You will probably think it is some magic, but try.
You're unable to grasp a core concept here, so regurgitating terms you've read on Wikipedia isn't going to convince anyone that you aren't a blithering idiot. Vacuum isn't nothingness.
Before I proceed any further, just a quick test. How would you have felt if you did not have breakfast this morning?
I read a good comment on Feser's blog today. It went something like this:
"Imagine creationists go around telling everyone evolution is stupid, there's no reason to believe in it, it has been utterly disproven, and they spend all their time attacking Lamarck."
That's 99.9% of internet atheists. They have an idea of what theism is that's about a million miles away from what any theologian has said for the last 1000 years, and they spend all their time poking holes in it.
As I understand it there have always been exactly 73 books in the biblical canon, once the last text of the new testament was written. The Church just recognized them. The 66 book version is a bizarre innovation from the late middle ages to throw out the Deuterocanonical books, to simplify false teachings presumably.
But holy is what god says it is.
He is in charge, he can set things up any way he feels like.
Also, since god is all-knowing, the moment he decides to create a human, he already knows his fate and whether he will punish him or not.
He can make humans that he won't have to punish but he chooses to do otherwise.
It's pretty clear he gets off on punishing people for shit he doesn't like.
I do understand the rationale of telling people to take the bible literally, as a lot of people are very stupid and it's best to leave the interpreting to the pastor who spent years and decades studying it and related teachings.
They're really not.
People who are outspoken on social media aren't usually representative of the whole.
But holy is what god says it is.
He is in charge, he can set things up any way he feels like.
Also, since god is all-knowing, the moment he decides to create a human, he already knows his fate and whether he will punish him or not.
He can make humans that he won't have to punish but he chooses to do otherwise.
It's pretty clear he gets off on punishing people for shit he doesn't like.
And yet, he watches you every moment of your existence and then judges you for every little thing you've done that he didn't like.
Like I've said, he gets off on punishing people.
And yet, he watches you every moment of your existence and then judges you for every little thing you've done that he didn't like.
Like I've said, he gets off on punishing people.
Iterally the whole point of the crucification of Jesus, so integral to the religion that the cross is the symbol for Christianity, is an act of forgiveness and a promise that God will mellow out a bit.
Remember the Apostles and early followers of our Lord had a habit of dying rather than denying his Godhood. This reflection of God's love, to lay down your life for your friends is not of "minor importance".
Comparing Christianity to Islam, and by necessity the Jesus of the Scriptures vs. the Jesus character presented in the Koran, written centuries later and denying his death on the Cross, you must not only believe in miracles in both cases.
You must in Christianity believe God loved the world enough to send his only begotten son to die for it's redemption, while in Islam a Jesus character seemingly identical in key ways to certain heretical "gospel" texts (that happen to predate the Koran by centuries) is part of a grand bait and switch, where it's a deception, that Jesus didn't die on the Cross.
The miracle for Christians is that Jesus willingly chose death to free us forever, in Islam it's a mere illusion, Jesus isn't the Divine Son, the miracle seems to be how his teachings which were supposedly Islamic disappeared without a trace seemingly immediately.
My point is: if someone thinks he is a beliver (in JHWH) he needs to belive in miracles - events that are not restrained of the law of pshysics.. In this particular case it is crucial to de absurd.
Reason why god/deamons/whoever is producing miracles is other thing. If someone didn't belive in miracles and is making a quasilogic bypasses (for example: 'god is working according to laws of phsics') he cannot call himself a theist. Just because he didn't get what god is supposed to be and have childlish image of him. Why and what exactly god conduct in that day is important for christianity, not the idea of god.
Iterally the whole point of the crucification of Jesus, so integral to the religion that the cross is the symbol for Christianity, is an act of forgiveness and a promise that God will mellow out a bit.
Reminder it wasn't the Romans who wanted Jesus crucified, it was that infamous group of bankers who will always tell you they're being persecuted but never why.
If that's how you understood it, then you are truly a dumb subhuman animal unable to grasp basic ontological concepts. You don't even have the same kind of soul my dog has.
My point is: if someone thinks he is a beliver (in JHWH) he needs to belive in miracles - events that are not restrained of the law of pshysics.. In this particular case it is crucial to de absurd.
Reason why god/deamons/whoever is producing miracles is other thing. If someone didn't belive in miracles and is making a quasilogic bypasses (for example: 'god is working according to laws of phsics') he cannot call himself a theist. Just because he didn't get what god is supposed to be and have childlish image of him. Why and what exactly god conduct in that day is important for christianity, not the idea of god.
Certainly if follow the Lord Jesus you must believe he had the power to turn water into wine, walk on water, and raise the dead and buried. The existence of anything could be seen as absurd. An infinite universe with no beginning, any basic predictability (e.g. cause and effect) might be considered absurd to just assume, yet we what choice, aside from a creator is there?. Well most of us assume them, or thank God for them. There are some simulation theorists doing the rounds...
There may of course, however unlikely it may seem to be, as yet unknown physical ways that all that and more might be achieved. But if you believed (e.g. like an Ancient Aliens contributor) this was how it was done you would be completely missing the point.
I'm not going to argue the line between deism and a minimally interventionist theism.
I'm not claiming it's simple and completely obvious, but if you actually think the whole Divine plan as revealed:
Covenant with Abraham and some of his descendants, the Law, the judges, the prophets, the Incarnation, Jesus' life, his public miracles, his Passion, Death and Resurrection, and the Last Day (yet to happen)
is the most contrived method imaginable then I pity your lack of imagination. It, as far as we can perceive, takes place in a narrow window of time (at least the main points I mentioned) in a handful of nearby regions. There are short stories and novels with far more contrived plots, time travel, multiverses, logical paradoxes, etc.
When did God change his mind? I can think of many times the biblical author wrote that God repented, which can be read that way, or read as God testing a person or people.
If all your apologia is going to be of the caliber "the Bible said God repented, but that doesn't mean he really repented", then there's no point in any further discussion.
That is "YOU CAN'T TRIPLE STAMP A DOUBLE STAMP" level rationalization.
If all your apologia is going to be of the caliber "the Bible said God repented, but that doesn't mean he really repented", then there's no point in any further discussion.
That is "YOU CAN'T TRIPLE STAMP A DOUBLE STAMP" level rationalization.
The phrases I refer to are not just random words or sentences, they are in books (formerly scrolls) that together form the Bible. If the clear teaching in multiple places is that God is unchanging, has a perfect plan etc. and one way to read a different verse elsewhere in the Bible, is God really changed his mind... is that a contradiction, or does it just compel us to reject that way of reading it?
I am not denying there are difficult passages or even whole books. If you read it looking for contradictions you can find a vast number that seem that way. But the same can be said for all witness accounts, even those recorded the same day as the events, and manuscripts that have been transmitted by hand copying are notorious for the various spelling, copying, deleting errors we find in the surviving copies and fragments.
See, this is the problem. Any time a religious person likes something in their text, they say "oh, it's totally obvious; it's written clear as day right there!". And then any time they DON'T like something or something in the text is nonsensical or contradictory "oh, well there are a lot of difficult passages and you need years of religious training to truly understand it".
In other words, you need to be fully indoctrinated into the cult before you're skilled enough and have enough sunk-cost personal investment to handwave all the bullshit.
God never sat down humanity and did a keynote of all details of his plan. And as a omnipotent god that can see the future, it's more then likely his plan seems contradictory until it is completed. Ever watched a show or read a book where there is a clairvoyant with a plan?
