Deep Sight, dont make me have to search out and uproot your insults meted out to our God. There you stand, saying you never did. Dont get me started, abeg.

IMHO there are people who make statements about Christianity AS THEY SEE IT, non-condescendingly, objectively though from a non-Christian perspective. Deep Sight is NOT one of them, and I think that might even go without saying,
MyJoe is one of them. M_nwankwo is another. Krayola is yet another. Pastor AIO is yet another (though that conclusion is dodgy. You may need to excavate some levels of wit to see the embedded insults in his case).

On the other hand, we have people who EXTEND what the Bible says and add tripe to it, thus slurring it WHILE denying its authority. They take every chance to mock God, the Holy Spirit, Jesus and everything the Word stands for. These ones, I gradually learnt not to converse with except my back is to the wall, like now. T[b]he Hall of Fame has Abuzola, Olabowale, Jenwitemi, Mudley, Deep Sight, and recently noPuqEater.[/b]

Somewhere in the middle is someone like Mazaje who fluctuates his patterns between the two parties. And maybe Toneyb and huxley, pretending to take the information out of context.

My point is:
You don't have to hurl insults at a worldview because you disagree with it. You should learn to disagree politely. Take a cue from all those NON-Christians that I mentioned in the first category.

As to the "inconsistencies" you are seeing in Christianity, let me tell you the truth. It is a thing of choice. Christianity is a SOLE race. Whatever nuclearboy or Enigma or Aletheia or Viaro says, cannot help my faith on it's way to success UNLESS I ALLOW it to.

Faith is a personal, intellectual matter. Even if I have an explanation for all your questions, only I would understand it the way I received it from source. When you are ready to allow yourself to understand, you will understand it too. It's not all types of intellect that can be distributed. There are some things you just have to critically examine and find out for yourself using your, for lack of another word, supra-intellect.

---

P.S. Everyone, Viaro said Hi this afternoon. He's been really very busy but will pop into Nairaland again very soon.

InesQor:

Deep Sight, dont make me have to search out and uproot your insults meted out to our God. There you stand, saying you never did. Dont get me started, abeg.

IMHO there are people who make statements about Christianity AS THEY SEE IT, non-condescendingly, objectively though from a non-Christian perspective. Deep Sight is NOT one of them, and I think that might even go without saying,
MyJoe is one of them. M_nwankwo is another. Krayola is yet another. Pastor AIO is yet another (though that conclusion is dodgy. You may need to excavate some levels of wit to see the embedded insults in his case).

On the other hand, we have people who EXTEND what the Bible says and add tripe to it, thus slurring it WHILE denying its authority. They take every chance to mock God, the Holy Spirit, Jesus and everything the Word stands for. These ones, I gradually learnt not to converse with except my back is to the wall, like now. T[b]he Hall of Fame has Abuzola, Olabowale, Jenwitemi, Mudley, Deep Sight, and recently noPuqEater.[/b]

Somewhere in the middle is someone like Mazaje who fluctuates his patterns between the two parties. And maybe Toneyb and huxley, pretending to take the information out of context.

My point is:
You don't have to hurl insults at a worldview because you disagree with it. You should learn to disagree politely. Take a cue from all those NON-Christians that I mentioned in the first category.

As to the "inconsistencies" you are seeing in Christianity, let me tell you the truth. It is a thing of choice. Christianity is a SOLE race. Whatever nuclearboy or Enigma or Aletheia or Viaro says, cannot help my faith on it's way to success UNLESS I ALLOW it to.

Faith is a personal, intellectual matter. Even if I have an explanation for all your questions, only I would understand it the way I received it from source. When you are ready to allow yourself to understand, you will understand it too. It's not all types of intellect that can be distributed. There are some things you just have to critically examine and find out for yourself using your, for lack of another word, supra-intellect.

Well, I think you have a point. For all that has been said, I could have been less militant in opposition to that which I disagree with, especially as this is a matter of faith.

I tender full and unreserved apologies if I have been unseemly in this regard; and will endeavour to be more circumspect in this regard.

On that note I hope you will forgive me if my perspectives have been delivered in a less than brotherly fashion in the past: and I invite you to start to rebuild whatever we may have lost in that regard.

P.S. Everyone, Viaro said Hi this afternoon. He's been really very busy but will pop into Nairaland again very soon. 

Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrraaaaaaaaayyyy! ! ! !

PS - I would like you to know that I could never mock God, the Holy Spirit, or Jesus, as you claimed.

You know I believe in GOD, so it would be odd for me to mock God: that which I have admittedly mocked is the religious ontology of God, which I am painfully at odds with.

As per the Holy Spirit, I would be surprised if you view my assertion that it is not a personal sentient being as an attempt to mock it.

As per Jesus - I could never mock him. He remains one of the great teachers of truth to have walked the earth in my view: what I have admittedly mocked is the perspective that he is God - and you know I am at odds with this. I hope that while you take umbrage at the denial of the deity of christ, others, such as myself, are equally pained by what we see as amounting to blasphemy:: for in our view no human may be called God. Different perspectives, I guess - but i just want you to know I have not, and would never mock Jesus the man. What I have railed against is the assertion that he is God.

Deep Sight:

@ Nuke -

Recall we had once extensively discussed the word 'alma' - which is translated "virgin" - but in reality simply means "young woman."

Does that affect your view of the concept of the virgin birth?

Actually, I was going to ignore this but for the records here is a post I made not too long ago when a Moslem poster tried the same trick in debate with another poster.

@ italo

Don't let him mislead you; it is more complicated than that and even 'alma' does/can mean virgin. Do some more study on the subject. An example: the Septuagint which was compiled way way before the Christian era translates it to a Greek word that is widely reckoned to mean virgin ---- even though some will argue that even that word can be used e.g. to mean maiden.

EDITED I have found a link with a useful simplified discussion (though the discussion can be 'heavier or more 'scholarly')

http://www.secondexodus.com/html/jewishcatholicdialogue/virginbirth.htm

From here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-445327.192.html#msg6529296

I have a few words but I'll restrain myself cuz I don't wanna 'dribble backwards'. Sometimes it's really too much to ask for people to argue like adults. I love the perpetual hard on analogy Nuke gave. Hi, InesQor! You're like fire extinguisher up here. Frankly I think it's pointless to continue on this thread. All I have to say is anti-intellectual is not necessarily a bad thing when intellectualism cannot fathom a thing. It's like taking the wrong tool to something. Finito. Spirituality cannot be approached with pure intellect

@ vescussi >>> same way rationality isn't all-dependent on faith

[size=18pt]Alma[/size]

I remember that conversation pretty well and this is what I said and still say. The word "Alma" is used seven (7) times in the OT and every single time, it refers to situations that could only refer to virgins. I asked you on that thread why it was just the case of Mary that you would intepret as "young woman".

But you do not have to believe me - please show ONE time it was used in relation to a woman who had lost virtue. I stated this then and you kept quiet about the assertion. Please address that claim now.

Furthermore, you avoid the Trinity issue I raised and select this one. Fine! What does that however, say about your motives? For you do not wish to derail this thread and discuss Jesus words concerning the names of Father, Son and Spirit but you can veer into "Alma"?

Whichever you would, address now.

Enigma:

Well, it seems to me you are indeed making a critique of Christianity and I believe that it is fair to say that the modus operandi is as I mentioned.

It might look that way to you but you need to realize that you chose the field to which you wished to apply some for of intellectualism. This is also why I ask questions to find out where you stand on some issues.

Enigma:

1. Most of the entire chapter is about promises and rewards; a very small part of it is about threats.
2. As I said before, appeal to the intellect and a threat of punishment (and even a promise of reward) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Example: father says to seven year old son, do not play with the iron; it is dangerous, it can injure you; plus, if you do it I will smack you and if you don't do it I will give you chocolates.

Threatening someone with punishment is not appealing to their intellect it is appealing to their emotions.

Enigma:

As I keep saying, the point at issue is whether Christianity teaches that a person should not take conventional medicine; it does not thus you need to reappraise your understanding of the 'mustard seed' passage.

Then can you explain your understanding of the passage since I've presented mine. It also seems curious to me that if one has such a large faith (say the size of a mustard seed), why would they decide to rely on conventional medicine?

Enigma:

It is outside of science because it does not account to science for its truth, reliability or believability.

What does it depend on? And how does this dependence demonstrate intellectualism?

Enigma:

Then let scientists continue with their own jobs/tasks. I have put in enough work to satisfy me and I do not ask you or any scientist to accept what I believe. I am very happy for you to doubt it.

But, if you wish to label whatever you've done as some form of intellectualism, you need to show your workings.

Enigma:

So, based on various things that we do know, we accept the virgin birth.

Such as?

Enigma:

My point is that reasoning is a valid intellectual exercise in its own right and it is one of the things that inform my acceptance of Christianity.

Of course reasoning is valid. But, if you wish to label what you're doing as some form of intellectualism, you would need to avoid the pitfalls that have already been previously identified.

Enigma:

This was about the punishments in the Bible (presumably the Old Testament); as I said before, if you have a proper understanding of Christianity and Christian doctrine, the question will not arise. Read for example what Christ said about a lot of these things 'you have heard x but I tell you. . .'

But he also said he did not come to abolish the previous laws so those laws were still in effect.

Enigma:

Christians, like others, are entitled to have political opinions. Sorry, if I do not proffer my opinion here beyond saying I do not seek a theocracy.

Ok. Is there a reason why you do not seek a theocracy?

Enigma:

I do not think it can be reasonably denied that there are misrepresentations and caricatures of Christianity. The fact, for example, that some fools seek to use Christianity to justify apartheid, slavery or bestiality etc does not mean that Christianity or true Christian doctrine supports any of these things.

How do you differentiate? Again you need to show how you arrived at this conclusion. How can a non-Christian or even a Christian of a different sect decide which is the true form of Christianity?

Enigma:

Again, it does not matter much to me whether people consider me an "intellectual"; I know what I know; I realise how much I do not know and indeed I am humbled by how much I do not know. Paradoxically, this even encourages my Christian faith.

Don't get me wrong I've not said or implied that you're not an intellectual. It's simply that when it comes to your religious belief, you may wish to skip such a label when describing it.

Enigma:

My faith is supported by both reason and a personal experience of God; both of these are sufficiently "intellectual" in my view.

But they alone do not merit the use of the term "intellectual". You could have simply left it as your "religious faith" rather than trying to add the word "intellectual", which already has some meanings ascribed to it, to your reasons for believing what you believe.

thehomer:

It might look that way to you but you need to realize that you chose the field to which you wished to apply some for of intellectualism. This is also why I ask questions to find out where you stand on some issues.

If you don't see what you are doing as a critique of Christianity, no problem; not such a big issue to sweat.

Threatening someone with punishment is not appealing to their intellect it is appealing to their emotions.

I have explained this point a couple of times now; it is fine if you disagree that (a) appeal to intellect can go together with promise/threat or (b) that that is what the concerned passage does.

Then can you explain your understanding of the passage since I've presented mine. It also seems curious to me that if one has such a large faith (say the size of a mustard seed), why would they decide to rely on conventional medicine?

If you are satisfied with your own explanation that is fine; I will not go beyond saying that the passage does not teach that a Christian should not take conventional medicine.

What does it depend on? And how does this dependence demonstrate intellectualism?

I have said before you think science is all, I do not think science is all; you think the virgin birth is acceptable only if it conforms to science (especially as you currently know it), I do not think so; I believe there are other bases for reaching an intellectual acceptance of the virgin birth including reasoning combined with personal experience of God. You may not be satisfied by it ---- but your dissatisfaction does not make such acceptance non-intellectual.

But, if you wish to label whatever you've done as some form of intellectualism, you need to show your workings.

My individual workings or the workings of the Christian faith? The genuine workings of the Christian faith are very much extant, just like the workings of philosophy, but I guess you reject them --- or you have not studied them adequately. If you reject the genuine workings of the entire faith, why would you accept my personal workings; why would I even want to give them?

Such as?

Firstly, note what I said not what I didn't say: I said we (i.e. Christians) accept the virgin birth --- based on what we (i.e. Christians) know. Very well then, my answer is very similar to the last above; I will give examples but you will not accept them; then, you will say your non-acceptance invalidates them --- how is that for logic. Let me give you just one example: we know of the power and might of God.

Now here is where it gets interesting - your next move: first, you don't accept the power and might of God but more crucially you will ask me how I/we know of the power and might of God, not so? And you would want that based on science --- you will not accept reason and personal experience, no? But I repeat that even that which we know by reason and personal experience is intellectual --- whether it is acceptable to you or not.

If my presumption of your next move on this point is wrong, I apologise in advance ---- but I am beginning to tire of circuitous debate.

Of course reasoning is valid. But, if you wish to label what you're doing as some form of intellectualism, you would need to avoid the pitfalls that have already been previously identified.

If reasoning is valid i.e. an intellectual exercise --- then is it not "intellectual" to accept Christianity in part based on reasoning?

But he also said he did not come to abolish the previous laws so those laws were still in effect.

Read e.g. the account of the woman caught in adultery.

Ok. Is there a reason why you do not seek a theocracy?

I have reasoned and learned from Scripture that it is not necessary.

How do you differentiate? Again you need to show how you arrived at this conclusion. How can a non-Christian or even a Christian of a different sect decide which is the true form of Christianity?

You need proof that Christianity does not support apartheid, slavery or bestiality? OK: try reading the Bible and let me know if you have a different conclusion on the issue.

Don't get me wrong I've not said or implied that you're not an intellectual. It's simply that when it comes to your religious belief, you may wish to skip such a label when describing it.

Thanks for your advice, I do not so wish. As I have said before, if one can accept philosophy as an intellectual discipline and various philosophical theories/positions as intellectual exercises, it is then at the least a surprise that one would deny Christianity a similar status. One may disagree with it --- no question about that but that is not the same thing as denying the same status as other disciplines of similar propositional status.

But they alone do not merit the use of the term "intellectual". You could have simply left it as your "religious faith" rather than trying to add the word "intellectual", which already has some meanings ascribed to it, to your reasons for believing what you believe.

Nah, we will have to agree to disagree. The use of reasoning in arriving at the conclusion of belief in God is an intellectual exercise. I keep making comparisons to philosophy ---- I wonder if you will say that the philosophical theories that end in a conclusion of the existence of God are not "intellectual"? Added to the pure reasoning element in the acceptance of Christianity is the experience of God --- which underpins belief even in what one does not understand or cannot explain ---- that is supra-intellectual. It is not baseless, it is not unreasoned; rather it is value-added to the "purely" intellectual.

vescucci:

I have a few words but I'll restrain myself cuz I don't wanna 'dribble backwards'. Sometimes it's really too much to ask for people to argue like adults. I love the perpetual hard on analogy Nuke gave. Hi, InesQor! You're like fire extinguisher up here. Frankly I think it's pointless to continue on this thread. All I have to say is anti-intellectual is not necessarily a bad thing when intellectualism cannot fathom a thing. It's like taking the wrong tool  to something. Finito. Spirituality cannot be approached with pure intellect

Somehow I missed this yesterday! Let me too for once use the expression Gbam.

Spirituality is to be approached with both intellectual and spiritual faculties! The trouble is some "intellectuals" not only deny a spiritual faculty but also see belief in a spiritual faculty to be "anti-intellectual". I call that small-mindedness, I'm afraid.

Enigma:

If you don't see what you are doing as a critique of Christianity, no problem; not such a big issue to sweat.
I have explained this point a couple of times now; it is fine if you disagree that (a) appeal to intellect can go together with promise/threat or (b) that that is what the concerned passage does.
If you are satisfied with your own explanation that is fine; I will not go beyond saying that the passage does not teach that a Christian should not take conventional medicine.

I ask for your take on the issue, you avoid giving it.

Enigma:

I have said before you think science is all, I do not think science is all; you think the virgin birth is acceptable only if it conforms to science (especially as you currently know it), I do not think so; I believe there are other bases for reaching an intellectual acceptance of the virgin birth including reasoning combined with personal experience of God. You may not be satisfied by it ---- but your dissatisfaction does not make such acceptance non-intellectual.

I already asked you why it should be beyond science when it's a physical act, you avoid presenting your reasons other than simply claiming that you arrived at it by reasoning.

Enigma:

My individual workings or the workings of the Christian faith? The genuine workings of the Christian faith are very much extant, just like the workings of philosophy, but I guess you reject them --- or you have not studied them adequately. If you reject the genuine workings of the entire faith, why would you accept my personal workings; why would I even want to give them?

Just your workings. I don't think it would be fair ask you to speak for all Christians.

Enigma:

Firstly, note what I said not what I didn't say: I said we (i.e. Christians) accept the virgin birth --- based on what we (i.e. Christians) know. Very well then, my answer is very similar to the last above; I will give examples but you will not accept them; then, you will say your non-acceptance invalidates them --- how is that for logic. Let me give you just one example: we know of the power and might of God.

Now here is where it gets interesting - your next move: first, you don't accept the power and might of God but more crucially you will ask me how I/we know of the power and might of God, not so? And you would want that based on science --- you will not accept reason and personal experience, no? But I repeat that even that which we know by reason and personal experience is intellectual --- whether it is acceptable to you or not.

I may reject personal experience but how can I reject sound reason? Sure if it could be evaluated scientifically, things would be so much easier. But, if you want to go some other route, you would still need to add some points such as logic and some basic truths.

Also, what you know by personal experience does not quite meet the requirements of being intellectual in as we're using the word because we know that our perceptions can be altered.

Enigma:

If my presumption of your next move on this point is wrong, I apologise in advance ---- but I am beginning to tire of circuitous debate.

Apology accepted.

Enigma:

If reasoning is valid i.e. an intellectual exercise --- then is it not "intellectual" to accept Christianity in part based on reasoning?

What aspects do wish to apply reason to? Is it the faith requirement which by its very nature requires a short circuiting of reason?

Enigma:

Read e.g. the account of the woman caught in adultery.

He did not criticize or change the law he simply stopped the would be executors of the law. The law still stood.

Enigma:

I have reasoned and learned from Scripture that it is not necessary.
You need proof that Christianity does not support apartheid, slavery or bestiality? OK: try reading the Bible and let me know if you have a different conclusion on the issue.

For one thing, slave owners were not criticized but were even given terrible advice on how to treat their slaves. Plus, encouraged the slaves to be subservient.

Enigma:

Thanks for your advice, I do not so wish. As I have said before, if one can accept philosophy as an intellectual discipline and various philosophical theories/positions as intellectual exercises, it is then at the least a surprise that one would deny Christianity a similar status. One may disagree with it --- no question about that but that is not the same thing as denying the same status as other disciplines of similar propositional status.

Well since you wish to use the label, you have to take it with its baggage. Your comparison with philosophy is interesting. Philosophy uses reasoning and logic with very little recourse to faith.

Enigma:

Nah, we will have to agree to disagree. The use of reasoning in arriving at the conclusion of belief in God is an intellectual exercise. I keep making comparisons to philosophy ---- I wonder if you will say that the philosophical theories that end in a conclusion of the existence of God are not "intellectual"? Added to the pure reasoning element in the acceptance of Christianity is the experience of God --- which underpins belief even in what one does not understand or cannot explain ---- that is supra-intellectual. It is not baseless, it is not unreasoned; rather it is value-added to the "purely" intellectual.

But you've not done that.
Which God do those philosophical theories refer to? I doubt that it's to the same one you're referring to.
The God experience had by other religious groups and demonstrated in labs are they all the same? Why should your personal experience be taken by others as the best explanation?

thehomer:

I ask for your take on the issue, you avoid giving it.

I have given you my take, only you do not want to take it. Do you now accept that Christianity does not teach people not to use conventional medicine? In your answer to that lies my take.

I already asked you why it should be beyond science when it's a physical act, you avoid presenting your reasons other than simply claiming that you arrived at it by reasoning.

As I said earlier, this is getting circuitous now: you think science is all, I do not think science is all.

Just your workings. I don't think it would be fair ask you to speak for all Christians.

Nah, go with the extant workings of the entire faith first; if you are not satisfied with that, you won't be satisfied with my workings! (Aren't we getting circuitous again?)

I may reject personal experience but how can I reject sound reason? Sure if it could be evaluated scientifically, things would be so much easier. But, if you want to go some other route, you would still need to add some points such as logic and some basic truths.

Which philosophical theories do you accept and which do you reject? Does the fact that you reject a particular philosophical theory make the theory "anti-intellectual"?

Also, what you know by personal experience does not quite meet the requirements of being intellectual in as we're using the word because we know that our perceptions can be altered.

And that is why I say that personal experience (of God) is beyond purely "intellectual".

Apology accepted.

What aspects do wish to apply reason to? Is it the faith requirement which by its very nature requires a short circuiting of reason?

You are wrong that faith necessarily short-circuits reason. I have already explained on this thread how even faith can be based on either material or non-material evidence. If that is not "reason" for you, then fine.

He did not criticize or change the law he simply stopped the would be executors of the law. The law still stood.

I would suggest you read the Bible again; again, I suggest his "you have heard x but i tell you" statements, also his various challenges of Pharisees etc and synthesise everything. If after that you still believe that Christianity advocates those punishments you refer to - then that is fine.

For one thing, slave owners were not criticized but were even given terrible advice on how to treat their slaves. Plus, encouraged the slaves to be subservient.

If you believe that with what is known of its doctrine and history (including its role in the abolition of slave trade) that Christianity supports the slave trade, along with apartheid and bestiality, then that is fine.

Well since you wish to use the label, you have to take it with its baggage. Your comparison with philosophy is interesting. Philosophy uses reasoning and logic with very little recourse to faith.

And Christianity uses reasoning and logic with the value added of experience and faith.

But you've not done that.
Which God do those philosophical theories refer to? I doubt that it's to the same one you're referring to.
The God experience had by other religious groups and demonstrated in labs are they all the same? Why should your personal experience be taken by others as the best explanation?

Does it matter which God philosophy arrives at? The point is that there are such philosophical theories: the question is are such theories "intellectual" or not?

vescucci:

I have a few words but I'll restrain myself cuz I don't wanna 'dribble backwards'. Sometimes it's really too much to ask for people to argue like adults. I love the perpetual hard on analogy Nuke gave. Hi, InesQor! You're like fire extinguisher up here. Frankly I think it's pointless to continue on this thread. All I have to say is anti-intellectual is not necessarily a bad thing when intellectualism cannot fathom a thing. It's like taking the wrong tool  to something. Finito. Spirituality cannot be approached with pure intellect

Actually, I'd like to take up this post further, particularly the two bits that I've highlighted.

On "anti-intellectualism" generally: it should be realised that there are two sides to this in relation to Christianity. The one side is the "dumb"/"daft" view of Christianity i.e. the charge that it is not intellectual and/or that it cannot be sustained intellectually. I hope the exchanges so far will make people rethink that.

The second side is that Christianity looks down on "intellectualism". Well, non-acceptance of a particular scientific or intellectual position is not necessarily anti-intellectual. Better yet, acceptance of a particular scientific/intellectual position as (probably) correct in its own right but inapplicable in a specific instance (e.g. the virgin birth) based on what we have good reason to believe as of faith is not anti-intellectual.

This last is what I was conveying in my opening post and this is one of the reasons Christianity is called "anti-intellectual" in the 'looking down' sense. It is also in part why someone like Tertullian (himself a great scholar and intellectual) is sometimes referred to as "anti-intellectual" --- a charge that has been refuted in the literature. Incidentally, Tertullian seems to be a particular victim of misattribution/mistreatment as with the "Credo Quia Absurdum" quote -- see here for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credo_quia_absurdum.


On the bit in green, Christians are taken to task for placing limits on "intellectual" or "worldly" wisdom in matters of doctrine --- as though the "intellectual" or "worldly" wisdom has all the answers. Here is an interesting quote from the Bible from Colossians 2:

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

I think the problem here is that for thehomer, intelligence starts and stops with the tangible or at least expressible world (e.g. Memories are intangible but can be imported into the tangible, thus are expressible, so science via psychology will refer to memory processes as intelligent processes).

IMO, there is an ethereal / spiritual kind of intelligence as well, which operates by similar token to the tangible aspect commonly understood. This ethereal intelligence is what Enigma refers to as supra-intelligence, because it can, by choice influence the tangible intelligences. One such example is creatio ex nihilo. That is a development of tangible intelligences ("Mother Nature", its ecosystems, Universes, etc) BY ethereal intelligence: God, the prime mover.

Using the creation archetype of intelligences [/b]above, [b]both types of intelligence being variant in essential nature; it is only unfair and worthless to attempt rationalizing ethereal intelligence using expressible/tangible intelligence, dont you think so?. This will be like a galaxy, intelligent in itself, evaluating the intelligence behind its coming to birth.

There are two types of intelligence, the ethereal [/b]and the tangible/expressible, which I will call the [b]natural. The OP's point, as I understand it, is that the Christian experiences his/her adventures using both forms of intelligence. The ethereal intelligence is principal (it does what the natural does, PLUS some more), and the natural intelligence is redundant.

Forgive the geek in me, it's like having a computer with wireless internet access and a blazing fast DSL broadband link at the same time. You cant use both internet sources at once, but you can switch. BY your own choice. It would then be poor for an observer to say someone who is connected via DSL but his wireless network card is currently switched off, cannot access the web. (Caveat: In my analogy Im not trying to say that Christians can get the exact same result from either intelligence-form).

Argh I just realized that the analogy above is a riot.

I would like to redact it. Thanks.

Where's DeepSight?

Now the Alma issue is laid out, he'll disappear without comment though active elseplace as though it wasn't him that started the issue. 6 months hence, it will be brought up someplace else! Makes one wonder what the whole thing is about!

Enigma:

I have given you my take, only you do not want to take it.   Do you now accept that Christianity does not teach people not to use conventional medicine? In your answer to that lies my take.

You're yet to demonstrate this. Ok here's a direct question. What does the passage on the mustard seed teach? I'm not asking for what it does not teach.

Enigma:

As I said earlier, this is getting circuitous now: you think science is all, I do not think science is all.

Again I'm not asking about what method presents the best knowledge but what facts led you to your conclusion.

Enigma:

Nah, go with the extant workings of the entire faith first; if you are not satisfied with that, you won't be satisfied with my workings! (Aren't we getting circuitous again?)

You don't know whether or not I'll be satisfied with them besides, my satisfaction is irrelevant to the requirement here. The thing is if you wish to claim some form of intellectualism, you would need to show how you arrived at your conclusions.

Enigma:

Which philosophical theories do you accept and which do you reject? Does the fact that you reject a particular philosophical theory make the theory "anti-intellectual"?

Again this is besides the point. The fact is that the people who propounded the theories present their treatises for criticism if they wished to be considered as some sort of intellectuals.

Enigma:

And that is why I say that personal experience (of God) is beyond purely "intellectual".

Is it? Does this imply that it is beyond reason?

Enigma:

You are wrong that faith necessarily short-circuits reason. I have already explained on this thread how even faith can be based on either material or non-material evidence. If that is not "reason" for you, then fine.

You have? I must have missed it. Could you please place a link to this post of yours?

Enigma:

I would suggest you read the Bible again; again, I suggest his "you have heard x but i tell you" statements, also his various challenges of Pharisees etc and synthesise everything. If after that you still believe that Christianity advocates those punishments you refer to - then that is fine.

It seems you would like to send me on a wild goose chase rather than defend your position. I think it would be better if you presented passages where he said something like "these punishments are no longer needed or valid.

Enigma:

If you believe that with what is known of its doctrine and history (including its role in the abolition of slave trade) that Christianity supports the slave trade, along with apartheid and bestiality, then that is fine.

I never said anything about bestiality. Besides, it's not my belief it's right there in the Bible about the ways slaves should be treated by their masters. Or, can you present passages condemning slave owners?

Enigma:

And Christianity uses reasoning and logic with the value added of experience and faith.
Does it matter which God philosophy arrives at? The point is that there are such philosophical theories: the question is are such theories "intellectual" or not?

Of course the God arrived at matters. Would you like to find out in the end that you've been wasting resources worshiping the wrong God?
For the theory to be considered as such, it needs to be fully presented, criticized and at the end, still be valid.

@thehomer:

I wouldn't wish to interfere with the conversation you're having with Enigma but I noticed this -

thehomer:

You're yet to demonstrate this. Ok here's a direct question. What does the passage on the mustard seed teach? I'm not asking for what it does not teach.

Enigma say "Come now, let us reason together" but you say reasoning is not a part of Christianity yet here you post a question which basically says "suspend reasoning".

[1] A guy has a licensed firearm
[2] He's attacked by a knife weilding individual and had prior knowledge of the attack
[3] He drops his gun and says "In the name of Jesus"

Thats insanity.

[3] He fires at the attackers shoulder and disarms him.

Thats reasoning.

Now, if he didn't have prior knowledge and wasn't armed or able to defend himself or run, your "mustard seed" thingy can move him to epect/demand protection from his prayer.

That is reasoning.

But that is not what the lions in our midst teach. Which is why I said Enigma is not of that mould. There are those who think no matter what they believe in.

InesQor:

I think the problem here is that for thehomer, intelligence starts and stops with the tangible or at least expressible world (e.g. Memories are intangible but can be imported into the tangible, thus are expressible, so science via psychology will refer to memory processes as intelligent processes).

Well yes. Anything that is to be evaluated at an intellectual level needs to have its crucial points open to assessment by other parties.

InesQor:

IMO, there is an ethereal / spiritual kind of intelligence as well, which operates by similar token to the tangible aspect commonly understood. This ethereal intelligence is what Enigma refers to as supra-intelligence, because it can, by choice influence the tangible intelligences. One such example is creatio ex nihilo. That is a development of tangible intelligences ("Mother Nature", its ecosystems, Universes, etc) BY ethereal intelligence: God, the prime mover.

Well there you go. You mention some ethereal/spiritual intelligence. Now going by common language (though spiritual is quite nebulous), they may be difficult to assess. But since you claim it has some sort of effects on this world that can be assessed, then I think that intersection with this world would be where e.g myself as another party may be able to assess to see the effectiveness of your claim.

InesQor:

Using the creation archetype of intelligences [/b]above, [b]both types of intelligence being variant in essential nature; it is only unfair and worthless to attempt rationalizing ethereal intelligence using expressible/tangible intelligence, dont you think so?. This will be like a galaxy, intelligent in itself, evaluating the intelligence behind its coming to birth.

No I don't think so. Are you implying that ethereal intelligence cannot be expressed or communicated from one person to another?

InesQor:

There are two types of intelligence, the ethereal [/b]and the tangible/expressible, which I will call the [b]natural. The OP's point, as I understand it, is that the Christian experiences his/her adventures using both forms of intelligence. The ethereal intelligence is principal (it does what the natural does, PLUS some more), and the natural intelligence is redundant.

I think your statement of ethereal intelligence would need a better backup than simply stating it as being present.
If I get you correctly, you're saying that this ethereal intelligence is not open to regular reason. This raises some questions. Such as:

Why claim that such processes are not anti-intellectual when something being classified as intellectual requires it to follow regular reason?
Why should anyone else value your personal experiences highly when personal experience has been shown repeatedly not to be highly reliable?

InesQor:

Forgive the geek in me, it's like having a computer with wireless internet access and a blazing fast DSL broadband link at the same time. You cant use both internet sources at once, but you can switch. BY your own choice. It would then be poor for an observer to say someone who is connected via DSL but his wireless network card is currently switched off, cannot access the web. (Caveat: In my analogy Im not trying to say that Christians can get the exact same result from either intelligence-form).

Ok since you've retracted this example, I'll just leave it here.

nuclearboy:

@thehomer:

I wouldn't wish to interfere with the conversation you're having with Enigma but I noticed this -


Enigma say "Come now, let us reason together" but you say reasoning is not a part of Christianity yet here you post a question which basically says "suspend reasoning".

No. I'm asking what he understood from the passage.

nuclearboy:

[1] A guy has a licensed firearm
[2] He's attacked by a knife weilding individual and had prior knowledge of the attack
[3] He drops his gun and says "In the name of Jesus"

Thats insanity.

[3] He fires at the attackers shoulder and disarms him.

Thats reasoning.

Now, if he didn't have prior knowledge and wasn't armed or able to defend himself or run, your "mustard seed" thingy can move him to epect/demand protection from his prayer.

That is reasoning.

But that is not what the lions in our midst teach. Which is why I said Enigma is not of that mould. There are those who think no matter what they believe in.

Ok and if he couldn't escape and was unarmed and yet ended up in a hospital or was killed, can we conclude that he did not have enough faith?

thehomer:

You're yet to demonstrate this. Ok here's a direct question. What does the passage on the mustard seed teach? I'm not asking for what it does not teach.

Nope, I am not answering your "direct question". This started with your example of 'praying for a diabetic child' to which I replied that Christianity does not teach that people should not use conventional medicine. You don't believe my response --- that is fine by me. That is all on the point as far as I'm concerned. I do not intend to say anything further on this issue. I am tired of going round in circles.

Again I'm not asking about what method presents the best knowledge but what facts led you to your conclusion.

Circuitous. I have nothing more to say beyond all I've already said.

You don't know whether or not I'll be satisfied with them besides, my satisfaction is irrelevant to the requirement here. The thing is if you wish to claim some form of intellectualism, you would need to show how you arrived at your conclusions.

Again, circuitous. If you don't accept the extant Christian workings, that is fine. I do not intend to give my personal workings. I have nothing more to say on this issue beyond all I've already said.

Again this is besides the point. The fact is that the people who propounded the theories present their treatises for criticism if they wished to be considered as some sort of intellectuals.

Christian philosophy and theology is also out there. You don't have to accept it --- that you don't accept it does not make it anti-intellectual. Once again, this is circuitous and I have nothing more to say on the point.

Is it? Does this imply that it is beyond reason?

Again, circuitous; question already answered now presented in a slightly different form. I have nothing more to say beyond all I've said.

You have? I must have missed it. Could you please place a link to this post of yours?

Indeed I have. I have just read it again to double-check and it is on this very thread. 'Seek and you shall find'.

It seems you would like to send me on a wild goose chase rather than defend your position. I think it would be better if you presented passages where he said something like "these punishments are no longer needed or valid.

Again, circuitous. I have nothing more to say beyond all I've already said.

I never said anything about bestiality. Besides, it's not my belief it's right there in the Bible about the ways slaves should be treated by their masters. Or, can you present passages condemning slave owners?

Again, circuitous. I said before that if you believe that Christianity supports slave trade, that is fine by me. I have nothing more to say beyond that.

Of course the God arrived at matters. Would you like to find out in the end that you've been wasting resources worshiping the wrong God?
For the theory to be considered as such, it needs to be fully presented, criticized and at the end, still be valid.

Don't worry about me wasting resources, I'm doing quite fine. Christian philosophy, theology and theories are out there. Like with other philosophical theories, you can choose to accept or reject them.

Enigma:

Nope, I am not answering your "direct question". This started with your example of 'praying for a diabetic child' to which I replied that Christianity does not teach that people should not use conventional medicine. You don't believe my response --- that is fine by me. That is all on the point as far as I'm concerned. I do not intend to say anything further on this issue. I am tired of going round in circles.
Circuitous. I have nothing more to say beyond all I've already said.
Again, circuitous. If you don't accept the extant Christian workings, that is fine. I do not intend to give my personal workings. I have nothing more to say on this issue beyond all I've already said.
Christian philosophy and theology is also out there. You don't have to accept it --- that you don't accept it does not make it anti-intellectual. Once again, this is circuitous and I have nothing more to say on the point.
Again, circuitous; question already answered now presented in a slightly different form. I have nothing more to say beyond all I've said.
Indeed I have. I have just read it again to double-check and it is on this very thread. 'Seek and you shall find'.
Again, circuitous. I have nothing more to say beyond all I've already said.
Again, circuitous. I said before that if you believe that Christianity supports slave trade, that is fine by me. I have nothing more to say beyond that.
Don't worry about me wasting resources, I'm doing quite fine. Christian philosophy, theology and theories are out there. Like with other philosophical theories, you can choose to accept or reject them.

So you have refused to clarify any issues or expand on what you mean yet you wish your approach to be considered as not being anti-intellectual?
And, you're comparing your views to philosophical approaches which have at their very cores, answers to questions that arise while considering the theories.
You're simply demonstrating what you wished to criticize.
It seems I'm done here.

Someone who takes an intellectual approach would reasonably be expected to make honest acknowledgments on patently obvious points including among several others (a) whether Christianity teaches against use of conventional medicine, (b) whether Christianity supports slave trade etc etc etc

I know this thread would get to a point when 'oliver twist' will twist himself/herself to the point of no return&would eventually say 'i want no more' lol

Enigma:

Someone who takes an intellectual approach would reasonably be expected to make honest acknowledgments on patently obvious points including among several others (a) whether Christianity teaches against use of conventional medicine, (b) whether Christianity supports slave trade etc etc etc

My bro, insincerity is fast becoming the order of the day in Nigeria as of now. Even where pple know the truth, they still feel reluctant to speak it. May cos of the ego/selfishness

O ga, jare!

nuclearboy:

Where's DeepSight?

Now the Alma issue is laid out, he'll disappear without comment though active elseplace as though it wasn't him that started the issue. 6 months hence, it will be brought up someplace else! Makes one wonder what the whole thing is about!

Hello Nuclear -

Goodday, and welcome to a new lease of life!

I raised the Alma issue because the virgin birth was already being discussed on this thread as an example of an anti-intellectual belief.

So it will not derail this thread (as will a discussion on the Trinity) - Nevertheless i have a feeling that the discussion on this thread has kinda veered off that. So I leave the choice to you - do we open a fresh thread to discuss this once and for all - or do we continue here?

Your dear and most loving yonger brother;
In peace and friendship always;

S.

Deep Sight:

do we open a fresh thread to discuss this once and for all - or do we continue here?

Your dear and most loving yonger brother;
In peace and friendship always;

Lawyers! I'd have said you guys are definitely headed for hellfire anyways but Enigma will take me up on that.

Please let NOT my name appear again on the front page - I figure twill be titled "Nuclear destroys DeepSight arguments" or something like that, if I know you. I already feel like a virus afflicting NL, as it is. Discuss it here please, if you will

Lol! Will revert.

Alright. Since I have already written an epistle in the previous thread on my view, I doin't want to simply repeat myself. This is a view from a Jewish Scolar & Rabbi on the word "Alma."

What do you think of his argument?

For nearly two millennia the church has insisted that the Hebrew word alma can only mean “virgin.”  The church must hold this position because Matthew 1:22-23 translates alma in Isaiah 7:14 as “virgin.”  The first Gospel quotes this well-known verse to provide the only “Old Testament” proof text for the supposed virgin birth of Jesus.  The stakes are high for Christendom, because if the Hebrew word alma does not mean virgin, Matthew is misquoting the prophet Isaiah, and both a key tenet of Christianity and the credibility of the first Gospel collapses.

How accurate is this Christian claim?  The place to explore this issue is in the Jewish scriptures.  If the Hebrew word alma means virgin then each usage in the Bible must be either a clear reference to a virgin or at least be ambiguous.  The word alma appears in the Jewish scriptures seven times.  If even one reference clearly refers to a woman who is not a virgin, then Matthew’s rendition of Isaiah 7:14 becomes untenable.

One of the places where the uncommon Hebrew word alma appears in the Bible is in Proverbs 30:18-20 which reads,

There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman [b’alma].  This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.”

In the above three verses, King Solomon compares a man with an alma to three other things: an eagle in the sky, a serpent on a rock, and a ship in the sea.  What do these three things all have in common?  They leave no trace.  After the eagle has flown across the sky, determining that the eagle had ever flown there is impossible.  Once a snake has slithered over a rock, there is no way to discern that the snake had ever crossed there (as opposed to a snake slithering over sand or grass, where it leaves a trail).  After a ship has moved across the sea, the water comes together behind it and there is no way to tell that a ship had ever passed through there.  Similarly, King Solomon informs us that once a man has been with an alma there is also no trace of the fornication that had occurred between them.  Therefore, in the following verse (verse 20) King Solomon explains that once this adulterous woman has eaten (a metaphor for her fornication), she removes the trace of her sexual activity by exclaiming, “I have done no wrong.”  The word alma clearly does not mean virgin.

In the same way that in the English language the words “young woman” have no bearing on whether virginity is present or not, in the Hebrew language there is no relationship between the words alma and virgin.  On the contrary, it is usually a young woman who bears children.  Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah1 not alma.  Betulah is a common word in the Jewish scriptures, and can only mean “virgin.”

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/alma.htm

I think it is rather very obvious indeed that the hebrew "alma" means young woman - and your argument that it refers to virgins only is flawed, as shown by the Rabbi in his argument above. In the previous thread I pointed out to you that ALL young women were expected to be chaste, and as such, expected to be virgins when not married - and for this reason once one was an "alma" one was also expected to be a virgin. This is a social presumption and does not in any way mean that the word "alma" meant "virgin" for it does not. It means 'young woman" - and has been used in the OT to refer to even a woman having s.ex!

In the light of this, you must agree that it is certainly anti-the-evidence (if not anti-intellectual) to insist that, contrary to the known laws of nature, Jesus was delivered by a virgin.

Firstly, it is instructive that Hebrew Dictionaries translate "almah" as "maid, damsel, virgin"! Then, belief is that almah is derived from alma, a verb meaning "to hide, to conceal". Adam Clarke speculated upon the association between alma and almah: "A virgin , had not been uncovered, she had not known man"

Anyway.

Rabbi Tovia Singer (born on September 20, 1960) is the founder and director of Outreach Judaism, an international organization dedicated to countering the efforts of Christian evangelical groups that specifically target Jews for conversion, like Jews for Jesus.

Thus, your argument comes from a self acclaimed enemy of Christianity whose arguments would therefore be geared towards discrediting Christianity! Anyways, lets look at his argument.

His target is to have 1 in 7? That would be 14.3%. Very intellectual, don't you think? Still, lets look at it.

The good Rabbi says -

"There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman [b’alma]. This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.” Prov 30: 18 - 20

The Eagle masters the skies whist the skies are placid, innocent and non-participants in its goings to and fro
The serpent shines as it slithers across rocks. Rocks remain placid, innocent and non-participants in its endeavors
A ship cuts through waters, achieving its purpose. Water has no place and like the above is not a participant in the endeavors of the ship

The passage compares the eagle, serpent and ship to a man whist "b'alma" is compared to sky, rock and water. Now tell me, after the Eagle passes in the sky, what effect do you find left in the sky? Of the snake over the rock? Or the Ship thru the waters? Tell me the "after-effect" of such. Then compare to the effect you believe whatever man it was you believed left on Mary!

Compare the situation with the words of the Almighty Himself - "she would be OVER-SHADOWED by the Holy Spirit". Thus God uses exact language detailing her non-participation!

One interesting thing I see here is the desperation of the Singer guy. Why didn't he add Verse 17 or verse 21? Why 20? What relationship does verse 20 have with 18 & 19? But it suits his purpose, I guess.

Horseshit - a case of deciding your position then forcing/twisting existing text to say what supports that position. Thats what I think of Rabbi Singer's words! I have a bit of sympathy for him though - he sees his way of life and support for his position being threatened (he's an orthodox rabbi) and so wants his customers back in his synagogues! We see them here too fighting tooth and nail to keep their clients!

In addition to the above (overkill ), we have the following

Genesis 24:43 "Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass that when the virgin comes out to draw water, and I say to her, "Please give me a little water from your pitcher to drink:""

Would you say Rebekkah was not a virgin too?

Exodus 2:8 "And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go." So the maiden went and called the child's mother."

Slaves serving Aristocracy were not allowed to be non-virgins

Psalm 68:25 "The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; Among them were the maidens playing timbrels."

Dem no born you well to be amongst this group if you were not a Virgin

Proverbs 30:19 "The way of an eagle in the air, The way of a serpent on a rock, The way of a ship in the midst of the sea, And the way of a man with a virgin."

Treated above and twisted by Mr Singer

Song of Solomon 1:3 "Because of the fragrance of your good ointments, Your name is ointment poured forth; Therefore the virgins love you."

Self - explanatory

Song of Solomon 6:8 "There are sixty queens And eighty concubines, And virgins without number."

Self - explanatory

Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel."

Now clear? ? ?