Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » THANK GOD FOR THE ATHEISTS (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: THANK GOD FOR THE ATHEISTS
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That was the charge they brought him under, but Pilate rejected it. Pilate explicitly and specifically threw out all charges. When the Sadducees demanded that Pilate change the king of the Jews sign over the cross, turn for like the original charge that he said that he was king. Pilate refused.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pilate rejected it until he had to accept it. They didn't even bring a charge of blasphemy before Pilate. Why would they? And the sign over the cross never read "God" or "Son of God" or "said He was the Son of God". So Pilate got his digs in but still executed Him.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That depends what you mean by it. If you mean the crucifixion, you are correct. If you mean the charges then you are wrong.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkJello
Member
Member # 6828

 - posted      Profile for DarkJello   Email DarkJello       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[dons bomb suit]

Tea partiers would rather have a beer with Jesus than Obama, Romney, Hillary, McCain, or Rand Paul. Gasp!

(Yes, I made that up). [Wink]

Posts: 520 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not seeing how that fits into the discussion, but for what it's worth, you'd have to try harder to offend someone, I think.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tend to agree with Pete here, given what I remember. Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of anything and refused to order the crucifixion. He was handed over to Herod and then the Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin ordered the execution though they used Roman soldiers and Roman methods. The Roman soldiers in question had basically been detailed to the Jewish leaders who arrested Jesus and were bringing charges against him.

Thus the saying "I wash my hands of this".

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DarkJello:
[dons bomb suit]

Tea partiers would rather have a beer with Jesus than Obama, Romney, Hillary, McCain, or Rand Paul. Gasp!

(Yes, I made that up). [Wink]

I believe that Christ was more of a wine drinker. I also tend to believe that partying with Jesus was probably about as much fun as partying with Socrates.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
AI: "The only thing that matters is the value of God in people's lives."

Pete: "Ah, now there I agree with you that is an issue of greater significance than what I've been talking about. But hardly quantifiable."

If God exists He must be quantifiable, yes? Before you say that numbers are insubstantial, but they exist, I'll pre-rebut by saying that numbers represent quantities that are manipulable by well-defined rules and both the quantities and rules are independent of the manipulator or observer.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
If God exists He must be quantifiable, yes? Before you say that numbers are insubstantial, but they exist, I'll pre-rebut by saying that numbers represent quantities that are manipulable by well-defined rules and both the quantities and rules are independent of the manipulator or observer.

It depends on if you believe that God is material or immaterial, natural or supernatural. A material, natural god, is quantifiable because it would be measurable. A supernatural, immaterial god would be difficult to quantify because there is nothing to measure. Numbers could still be applied to it, in the same way we can apply quantities to immaterial things (such as 1 idea, 2 ideas, 3 angels, 4 gods), though they are not being measured and are not quantifiable in quite the same way as material objects. Still, as language, we understand the difference between one immaterial supernatural God, and twenty immaterial supernatural Gods.

I think it is also interesting to note that numbers are not just used to measure quantifiable objects, but are also used to designate a sequence or a pattern. A sequence or a pattern is not something that is actually material, it is a designation of change.

A computer program, when broken down, as far as I understand it, is a sequence of 1s and 0s. It is one long number. But it is not really a measurement or a quantity.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Numbers could still be applied to it, in the same way we can apply quantities to immaterial things (such as 1 idea, 2 ideas, 3 angels, 4 gods), though they are not being measured and are not quantifiable in quite the same way as material objects."

Isn't it redundant to assign a label such as a "number" to a divine symbol, such as "angel", since the symbol and number are equally abstract (or metaphorical)? You're not using the number as a counting marker, just an alias.

"Still, as language, we understand the difference between one immaterial supernatural God, and twenty immaterial supernatural Gods."

Kinda, sorta. The ancient God of War and the the God of Peace are incarnations of impulses or concepts, but my sense of those religions is that the personification grew out of the recognition of what they stood for, rather than the other way around. It makes it easier to think about the "parts of God" to differentiate and anthropomorphize them, where the singular Judeo-Christian God incorporates all of them.

It's interesting (to me, anyway) that the distinct Gods had such individualized personalities and visualizations, and were considered to have or have had concrete physical manifestations, but the J-C God is conceptualized as immaterial. Jesus as an embodiment of God (and yet His son, not Him) bridges those divine worlds.

"A computer program, when broken down, as far as I understand it, is a sequence of 1s and 0s. It is one long number. But it is not really a measurement or a quantity. "

They certainly are; they exist as electrical, optical or magnetic states depending on the media used to represent them. How they are interpreted is up to the programmer. You are close to saying that DNA is not material because the individual looks nothing like the strand of DNA they are generated from (and uniquely identified by).

[ August 10, 2013, 08:01 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"J-C God is conceptualized as immaterial."

Sometimes conceptualized as immaterial. Sometimes anthropomorphized. Moses speaks to G_d "face to face." God "breathes" into Adam to give him life. The Jewish prophets tend to anthromorphized God, whereas the priest tend to de-humanize God (and according to prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah have a corresponding tendency to murder the prophets). This body-spirit tension spills over into Christianity, where Jesus provides an embodiment of God, and artists like Michelangelo are accused by Christian priests of blasphemy for depicting Heavenly Father as corporeal. So called "traditional" Christians often say Mormons aren't Christians because Mormons tend to anthropomorphize the Father, which is basically the same reason that some Jews deny that Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, and the same reason that Jesus was convicted of blasphemy before a court of Sadducee priests. It's all part of the corporal-incorporeal tension that goes back to Moses and Abraham and the JudeoChristian tradition of prophet-murdering priests.

In Moses and Monotheism, Freud goes so far as to hypothesize that Moses himself is murdered by the priests of the religion that he founded, and there are certain similarities to Moses' ambiguous disappearance in the Torah, and that of Romulus in the Roman tradition ... some saying that Romulus ascended to heavens as divine in a secret meeting in the Senate, while other say that the Senate, jealous of his power, cut Romulus into pieces with their daggers and smuggled the pieces out in their black togas.

Even if Freud is wrong about Moses' literal death, (as I believe hope that Freud is wrong), the Torah itself shows that he's symbolically correct, that the priestly mindset tries to suffocate the prophetic aspect. They drag individuals before Moses for the crime of prophesying, and Moses wishes that all could prophesy.

[ August 10, 2013, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The tension itself is good: The extreme of the mystical prophetic tradition, the Jim Jones/David Koresh types, are at least as scary, if not more, than the opposite priestly tradition, the fundamentalists.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The tension carries over into nonreligious spheres in the modern culture, e.g. Tesla versus Edison, Jobs vs. Gates. The capitalist plays priest to the inventor, basically kills the inventor and turns discovery into establishment.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good posts. Things to chew on...
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1