Why do Christians believe Jesus was God himself?

[aggle-rithm]

John 10:30 had a lot to do with it: "I and the Father are one."

Sure, that's what HE said. But then his dad was going around telling people, "That boy ain't right."

 

[Resume]

An unprovoked jab at me eh? Well sooner or later, JREFers usually quit talking to me and start taking jabs so I guess I'm not surprised.

Actually what happens is you receive criticism for your unevidenced hooey and then you put that critic on ignore. In other words you spew nonsense, then are offended when that nonsense is parodied.

As long as you continue to offer only bare assertions for all manner of tripe, this reaction from critics seems fair.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

An unprovoked jab at me eh? Well sooner or later, JREFers usually quit talking to me and start taking jabs so I guess I'm not surprised.

Dude, you wrote a whole page of BS about how maybe he lost his soul and other such BS. Not to mention the whole tone of what's wrong with everyone who disagrees with you, and apparently everyone else doesn't know comparative religions (although it's always been YOU who dodged the question when asked to actually talk about comparative religion history), and so on.

At least have the basic decency to not pretend now that he's picking on you unprovoked. You don't get to play the poor victim card if it's you who started with the comments about others

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Your logic is flawed. What gives you the right to demand consistency? We are dealing with interactive autonomous beings, and you expect consistency? lol. Why hasn't it occurred to you that the gods don't want a global game changer or can't bring one about.

Well, that's a bit of a strawman, since neither he, nor I, were asking for consistency per se. So please address what was actually asked.

The actual question was, precisely BECAUSE the "gods" or "voices in your head" or "great spirits" are inconsistent, how do you know they're not lying to you? How do you verify that information?

I mean, imagine you had a friend who told a bunch of people that rabbits don't breed, they just pop out of holes, coming from the underworld, sent by the great spirits as prey for the hunters. And he told other people that human reproduction has nothing to do with sex, and in fact virgin girls get pregnant all the time. And he told yet other people that males can't produce their own seed, until they first get it orally from an older man. And he told yet other people that winds come through 4 windows in the sky dome, sorta like the draft you get in your house if you leave the windows open, and in fact the wind direction depends on which sky windows were left open. And he told yet other people that European ships coming from beyond the horizon are actually coming from the spirit world, and were actually meant for them, not the Europeans, the Europeans just fool the spirits into landing the ship at the Europeans' ports. Etc.

Those are all actual things that various shamans were told by the gods/spirits/whatever.

That guy is either crazy or stupid or a liar. The point isn't whether he exists or is consistent, the point is that, precisely BECAUSE he's inconsistent and full of ####, no sane person would believe anything that guy said, unless they could confirm it independently. If a guy told you one time that the sky is green, another time that the sky is purple, yet another time that the sky is white with polka dots, etc, the question isn't as much why he's inconsistent, as why would you bother go ask him anything?

THAT is the question about spirits. The point is that given their track record, even if I believed you that spirits exist, you'd still have to be a gullible dolt to believe anything they say. Doubly so to actively seek them.

You keep throwing around "mysticism" like it's some virtue. But if it boils down to just keeping going to some source -- regardless of whether it's real or imaginary -- known to produce false garbage 99% of the time, and yet you still go seek it and try to learn stuff from it, then it's not a virtue, it's just terminal gullibility.

So how do you verify whatever you learn from those spirits?

'For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie' -2 Thessalonians 2:11

And that in a nutshell is the whole point: how do YOU know that YOU are not one of the guys sent a powerful delusion to believe a lie?

Expecting consistency from a chemical or something like that is one thing. Expecting it from a person or a god is something else.

However, expecting basic skepticism when your source has historically told BS 99% of the time, is still a smart thing.

 

[Leumas]

THAT is the question about spirits. The point is that given their track record, even if I believed you that spirits exist, you'd still have to be a gullible dolt to believe anything they say. Doubly so to actively seek them.

Hehehe..... funny enough I can use the SAME quotes as I did in reply to another post of yours...

Even Augustine says that they are DECEIVERS.

Also we have The City Of God by St. Augustine Of Hippo

Book X Chapter 10

this is what the apostle refers to when he speaks of "Satan transforming himself into an angel of light." For these are the delusive appearances of that spirit who longs to entangle wretched souls in the deceptive worship of many and false gods, and to turn them aside from the true worship of the true God, by whom alone they are cleansed and healed, and who, as was said of Proteus, "turns himself into all shapes," equally hurtful, whether he assaults us as an enemy, or assumes the disguise of a friend.​

Book X1X Chapter 9

and as Satan, as we read, sometimes transforms himself into an angel of light, to tempt those whom it is necessary to discipline, or just to deceive, there is great need of God's mercy to preserve us from making friends of demons in disguise, while we fancy we have good angels for our friends; for the astuteness and deceitfulness of these wicked spirits is equaled by their hurtfulness​

The problem of course is Augustine is no more prudent here than any other NUT.... to him the verification of the goodness of angels and spirits is if they tell him what HE WANTS TO HEAR....anything else is satanic of course.

You keep throwing around "mysticism" like it's some virtue. But if it boils down to just keeping going to some source -- regardless of whether it's real or imaginary -- known to produce false garbage 99% of the time, and yet you still go seek it and try to learn stuff from it, then it's not a virtue, it's just terminal gullibility.

So how do you verify whatever you learn from those spirits?
And that in a nutshell is the whole point: how do YOU know that YOU are not one of the guys sent a powerful delusion to believe a lie?
However, expecting basic skepticism when your source has historically told BS 99% of the time, is still a smart thing.

Well Augustine said it best....

"Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe."

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, that may be, but I was asking about the kind of mysticism that Limbo pollutes every other thread with, not about what Augustine thought on the matter. It doesn't seem to have much to do with the Christian dogma, or even with any kind of real comparative religion study, so I doubt that Augustine would have any relevance to that.

As for Augustine... Well, Augustine was... Augustine indeed. He talked out the ass at such great lengths and about so many extrapolations about irrelevant details, that truly t'is a miracle from God that he didn't get sphincter cramps But to his defense, so did most ancient philosophers. The idea that if you can talk yourself into thinking that, yeah, it makes sense that Luke Skywalker had an extra testicle, then it must be true, was even itself rationalized by the likes of Aristotle.

But in the meantime we kinda discovered that we need independent testing and falsifiability, because you can talk yourself into anything whatsoever. So I understand modern people still acting as if rationalizing their imaginary friends make them real, get much less of an excuse than Augustine.

 

[pakeha]

...
I've been to states of Nirvana consciousness that liberated me from the 'wheel of karma', thus making me the equivalent of a Buddha or a saint. What is the use of such states of being, you may ask? To someone like me who has tasted a full Kundalini awakening such a question as that is incredibly, utterly ridiculous.

OK.

Sure, that's what HE said. But then his dad was going around telling people, "That boy ain't right."

It's been a while since I quoted a reliable source on the nature of divinity, so this seems like a good moment to do so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII6-IyaT3o&list=UUOrE5EE4JH3CGwDQTsA2t_A&index=42&feature=plcp

 

[dafydd]

That's like saying yin and yang are in cahoots as part of the Tao farce. Or musical instruments are in cahoots as part of the symphony farce.

I like Beethoven's Ninth Farce.

 

[dafydd]

An unprovoked jab at me eh? Well sooner or later, JREFers usually stop talking to me and start taking jabs instead so I guess I'm not surprised.

Come up with some proof of your absurd claims and the jabs will stop.

 

[catsmate]

Most non-Catholics are quite unhappy with the Catholic view/practice of Mary.

But they're just heathens...................

 

[catsmate]

In the Sixties in Ireland JFK was part of the Trinity.

Along with St. Patrick. Though only in the south.

 

[Mudcat]

Come up with some proof of your absurd claims and the jabs hooks to the jaw will stop.

Fixed, for accuracy.

Limbo, we're all ears here. This thread really isn't for your proving grounds, but if you have evidence for your assertions we'll be more than happy to hear you out... and then point you out why you're still wrong.