US founded on "Christian Principles"?

[ceo_esq]

To put that answer more unambigously, though: I was able to think for just a moment that the pope's revision to the prayer was an application of the Golden Rule because, by its plain language, it expresses a wish for somebody else to enjoy a benefit that the speaker also would want.

... I admire your tenacity in avoiding answering my question. Are we gonna play ring around the rosie all night or do you intend to answer my question that you quoted in post #183?

Er... that was the answer to your question that I quoted in post #183.

Recall that your question that I quoted in post #183 was "How could you even think for a moment that the holier than thou bs from the pope is an application of love thy neighbor?" My answer, which you quoted in post #197 and which also appears in the embedded quote at the top of this post, was "because, by its plain language, it [i.e., the pope's revised prayer] expresses a wish for somebody else to enjoy a benefit that the speaker also would want."

I didn't mean to avoid your question at all; you are entirely mistaken.

 

[~enigma~]

Er... that was the answer to your question that I quoted in post #183.

Recall that your question that I quoted in post #183 was "How could you even think for a moment that the holier than thou bs from the pope is an application of love thy neighbor?" My answer, which you quoted in post #197 and which also appears in the embedded quote at the top of this post, was "because, by its plain language, it [i.e., the pope's revised prayer] expresses a wish for somebody else to enjoy a benefit that the speaker also would want."

I didn't mean to avoid your question at all; you are entirely mistaken.

If that is your answer I guess I owe you an apology but I will say that it is the biggest piece of bs I ever heard outside of most speechs by GWB

 

[ceo_esq]

I suppose my point was, that if it was a matter of following the GR, one could simply WANT or HOPE that God would illuminate their hearts, or even pray in private, with no announcements or fanfare about it. I didn't see the purpose of making it public.

Sort of one of those "just because you're thinking it doesn't mean you actually have to say it" moments. Even if the prayer itself is private, why publicize it? I can't see the purpose other than to sow more divisiveness.

Bear in mind that the way these people express wants or hopes for God to do something is to pray, and sometimes they pray silently by themselves and sometimes they recite prayers together in their churches. But realistically, if you led a religious congregation, and you wanted to encourage your congregation to pray for X, writing it down in some prayer book intended for their use (in a private ceremony) is probably one of the more discreet ways of doing so that would actually be efficient. They're not going to read your mind.

At any rate, I think your impression of the announcements and the fanfare is probably mistaken. Although I haven't followed the development of this news story in minute detail, my impression is that what happened was probably something like this: (1) a subset of nostalgic Catholics asks permission to use the old 1962 missal in Masses instead of a more recent edition, (2) the pope grants official permission, (3) it occurs to some people, including some Jews, that buried deep in the old missal was a potentially offensive reference in the annual Good Friday Mass, (4) the media gets hold of it and some people ask the pope to reconsider that particular passage, (5) the pope looks into it and decides to tone down the reference. I think the fanfare was pretty much generated outside the Vatican and I'm almost certain that the Vatican never drew attention to the Jewish reference on its own initiative.

Its not really the same thing to me. Saying you are thankful for who you are, and saying you want God to illuminate someone else, seems categorically different, regardless of what the good Rabbi said.

I didn't say I thought they were the same thing - in fact I highlighted a difference - just that the anecdote occurred to me when you asked that particular question. Some Jews apparently do think it's substantially similar. But arguably it has even greater potential to offend. Can you imagine if weekly Masses had people thanking god for not making them Jews? (Saying you're thankful for who you are, and saying you're thankful you're not someone else, strike me as different.) And again, one arguable difference is that thanking God for not making you a Jew would have nothing (at least nothing positive) to do with the G.R., whereas the actual Catholic prayer has a decent case in that regard.

However, I'm not particularly fond of the tribalism in that statement either, but the RCC is one of the last organizations that should be calling on other people to be illuminated.

Well, technically it was calling on God to illuminate people, and to its credit, I suppose, it certainly didn't exempt anyone, including itself, from that desire.

 

[CFLarsen]

So the trinity really means that the father, son and holy ghost aren't one?

I always thought I was confused about what the Trinity was.

Now I'm really confused.

I read the wiki article, and I understand each word individually. Put them together, though, and it suddenly doesn't make any sense.

Are you sure Christianity is monotheistic?

Nobody said it was easy...

I think that was directed at me, but I have Claus on ignore

No, you don't.

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of membership Agreement in quote removed.

Go on and criticize people for what they don't believe. See how far you get.

I don't know where you're from, but around here, Jesus = God is accepted by many people. It's not uncommon to hear Jesus described as creator of the universe, most high God, etc.

Jesus is God. But Jesus isn't his own dad, as articulett falsely claimed.

The shield of Trinity. Jesus is not his dad.

I believe one of the teachings of Christianity is that those who don't believe that Jesus died for our sins will be burning in hell.

Now, maybe it's just me, but it seems that Christians aren't eager to let the hell bound to enjoy the momentary life on earth before burning for eternity... they like tell them how great Christians are and how everyone else is damned. I don't think they'd like to be treated that way... but feel free to play all the apologetic and semantic games you want to pretend that Christians are super duper and the US is a Christian Nation.

Christians often seem very good at propping up this notion... even though it's a lie. We were founded as a secular nation... they don't really apply the golden rule to secularists when they try to rewrite history and push legislation to celebrate Christian heritage.

Christians are excellent at claiming to be discriminated against while tromping all over the rights of others. Not very golden rule-ish if you ask me. But I know you need to spin your delusion, so feel free. I'm aware that nothing can convince a person of faith to change their mind or utilize the tools of skepticism within their faith.

Again, you are stereotyping. There is no difference between what you say and saying "Blacks are lazy crooks" or "Jews are thieving rats".

 

[Piggy]

Jesus is God. But Jesus isn't his own dad, as articulett falsely claimed.

Depends who you ask. I'm not saying that this view is justified by tradition, or that it is a common view everywhere, but you can indeed find that view being expressed.

That's all I was trying to add. Nothing more.

Carry on.

 

[CFLarsen]

Depends who you ask. I'm not saying that this view is justified by tradition, or that it is a common view everywhere, but you can indeed find that view being expressed.

That's all I was trying to add. Nothing more.

Carry on.

We can find any view being expressed. But if articulett is trying to claim that this is how Christians, period, believe, then she is wrong.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Funny you should mention that. Back in July, when the pope made the initial decision to allow (not require) the old Good Friday prayer to be revived, Rabbi Jacob Neusner, a prominent Jewish intellectual, pointed out that "the synagogue liturgy has an equivalent prayer which we say three times a day, not just once a year." Except that instead of praying for the hearts of the Gentiles to be illuminated, in that prayer they basically thank God for not making them Gentiles.

Which prayer is this? There was a time when I went to synagogue regularly, and I don't recall anything like that.

Jesus is God. But Jesus isn't his own dad, as articulett falsely claimed.

Maybe Jesus is this guy?

 

[CFLarsen]

Maybe Jesus is this guy?

Thanks a lot....

 

[skeptical]

Jesus is God. But Jesus isn't his own dad, as articulett falsely claimed.

Now I'm going to derail my own thread....

According to Christian theology:

Jesus=son of God=God

AND

God=father of Jesus

Since removing and substituting equivalent terms does not change the equation, we can remove "son of God" and "God" and we get:

Jesus=father of Jesus

Why doesn't this work?

 

[~enigma~]

Now I'm going to derail my own thread....

According to Christian theology:

Jesus=son of God=God

AND

God=father of Jesus

Since removing and substituting equivalent terms does not change the equation, we can remove "son of God" and "God" and we get:

Jesus=father of Jesus

Why doesn't this work?

Last I saw the new testament atributed the words to jesus "I and the father are one." Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

 

[CFLarsen]

Now I'm going to derail my own thread....

According to Christian theology:

Jesus=son of God=God

AND

God=father of Jesus

Since removing and substituting equivalent terms does not change the equation, we can remove "son of God" and "God" and we get:

Jesus=father of Jesus

Why doesn't this work?

Take a look at the link I posted in #204 to the Shield of Trinity.

 

[~enigma~]

Take a look at the link I posted in #204 to the Shield of Trinity.

So god is a cojoined triplet?

 

[ceo_esq]

Which prayer is this? There was a time when I went to synagogue regularly, and I don't recall anything like that.

As near as I can tell from references online, it is from Berakhot 7:18 in the Talmud: "Blessed be [God], who did not make me a Gentile."

While looking into this, I noticed a reference in a similar vein to the one above, found in the Aleinu prayer: "[God] did not place us in the same situation as anyone else / For they bow to vanity and emptiness / And pray to a god which helps not." Apparently some Jewish congregations leave the latter part of that out, for p.c. or other reasons.

 

[CFLarsen]

So god is a cojoined triplet?

Sorta.

 

[skeptical]

Take a look at the link I posted in #204 to the Shield of Trinity.

According to that, the equation is:

The father = God
The Son = God

So far, so good

But then, it says The son ~= The father, so it is basically saying that you cannot substitute equivalents, so the equation The father = God = The Son, cannot be reduced to The Father = The son.

That is a violation of every principle of formal logic and mathematics, and putting it in a diagram does not make it any more sensible.

So, I still fail to see how someone can say that God is the father, and Jesus is the Son and God, does NOT mean that Jesus is his own father. People can say they don't believe that, but if what they are saying is identical in form to saying that, I don't understand how it is somehow a misrepresentation of their beliefs. If someone says they believe proposition A, it is not a misrepresentation to say they believe A, even if they also claim to believe "not A".

At any rate, it appears to be something that makes sense to others, but never will to me, so I conclude that "it is a mystery" is the best explanation I will ever get.

 

[~enigma~]

Sorta.

So christian are worshipping a mutant like the one in Total Recall? Hardly sems like a worthwhile thing to do...

 

[CFLarsen]

According to that, the equation is:

The father = God
The Son = God

So far, so good

But then, it says The son ~= The father, so it is basically saying that you cannot substitute equivalents, so the equation The father = God = The Son, cannot be reduced to The Father = The son.

That is a violation of every principle of formal logic and mathematics, and putting it in a diagram does not make it any more sensible.

So, I still fail to see how someone can say that God is the father, and Jesus is the Son and God, does NOT mean that Jesus is his own father. People can say they don't believe that, but if what they are saying is identical in form to saying that, I don't understand how it is somehow a misrepresentation of their beliefs. If someone says they believe proposition A, it is not a misrepresentation to say they believe A, even if they also claim to believe "not A".

At any rate, it appears to be something that makes sense to others, but never will to me, so I conclude that "it is a mystery" is the best explanation I will ever get.

You can't use logic to understand a religious problem.

It's an old conundrum, don't worry about it. Just accept that Jesus is not his father.

 

[~enigma~]

You can't use logic to understand a religious problem.

It's an old conundrum, don't worry about it. Just accept that Jesus is not his father.

Can't use logic yet you understand it??? Sorry but that last coment is somewhere deep in wooville.

 

[ceo_esq]

According to that, the equation is:

The father = God
The Son = God

So far, so good

But then, it says The son ~= The father, so it is basically saying that you cannot substitute equivalents, so the equation The father = God = The Son, cannot be reduced to The Father = The son.

That is a violation of every principle of formal logic and mathematics, and putting it in a diagram does not make it any more sensible.

I think it comes down to what it means when Trinitarians say, for example, that the Father is God. Your conclusion that there's a logical violation flows from your assumption that "is" is expressing a transitive relationship of identity, and have replaced it with "=", which is unsurprising because it's drawn from and usually associated with expressions of the numerical identity, which is transitive. However, "is" could be expressing a relationship other than an identity relationship, in which case it wouldn't necessarily follow that the relationship is transitive. In fact, I'm not even fully certain that there aren't kinds of identity relationships which aren't transitive (although numerical identity is), in which case the Trinitarian formulation could also be expressing such a relationship. In any event, it's probably misleading to use "=" to express it.

Here's an article by a couple of philosophy professors that gives an overview of proposed strategies for logical analysis of inter-Trinitarian relationships.

 

[~enigma~]

I think it comes down to what it means when Trinitarians say, for example, that the Father is God. Your conclusion that there's a logical violation flows from your assumption that "is" is expressing a transitive relationship of identity, and have replaced it with "=", which is unsurprising because it's drawn from and usually associated with expressions of the numerical identity, which is transitive. However, "is" could be expressing a relationship other than an identity relationship, in which case it wouldn't necessarily follow that the relationship is transitive. In fact, I'm not even fully certain that there aren't kinds of identity relationships which aren't transitive (although numerical identity is), in which case the Trinitarian formulation could also be expressing such a relationship. In any event, it's probably misleading to use "=" to express it.

Here's an article by a couple of philosophy professors that gives an overview of proposed strategies for logical analysis of inter-Trinitarian relationships.

So christianity or in this case cathlocism is beyond science and logic? Now where have we heard that claim before...