If that would be the case His death was in vain, our sins have not been pardoned and all that leads to, which is faulty because His Spirit in me testifies of Him.
Adam wrote:
Jesus most certainly did sin
You do realize you just made MJ waste an hour whilst he explains this to you, right?
Ok as much as I loathe religion talk, I won't let something as illogical, and frankly wrong pass. I spent many years in Catholic School, and although I disliked it, it was pretty fair assessment of the Catholic Faith. Jesus spent 30+ years as a man and carpenter. I can accept that he took ALL our sins on himself for our behalf and died for OUR sins. I'm not going much out on a limb that both logic and conventional religious wisdom agree, that as a man, not knowing his role for 30+ years, he sinned. There are few things I put my foot down with religion, but this is one of them.
Ok as much as I loathe religion talk, I won't let something as illogical, and frankly wrong pass.
And that's exactly how MJ sees your statement. Illogical and frankly wrong. I don't really think it much matters.
Why would you think he did not know his role?
When Jesus was 12, he was picked up by his parents teaching in a temple. He says "I must be about my father's business." If he didn't know his role, "His father's business" would be the carpentry shop, not teaching in a temple.
Why would you assume he did? We do know he was a carpenter for all but the last three years of his life. Using strictly logic, 30 years of age in the world in that time period was well past middle age, I am going to put forward, as many other religious and non religious scholars have, to say he did not find his "calling" till then. We can debate whether it was gods will vs. free will till we are blue in the face. Faith and logic do not always have to be at odds.
Oh and John, MJ is an adult, if he wishes to spend his time rebuffing a point it took me a minute to put down, with an hour long rebuttal, that's how he chooses to spend his time. I neither feel sorry for "making" him do so, nor will the amount of time spent convince me that his point is right. They are called opinions for a reason, we all have them, I just chose to voice mine, when I let one that sounded so wrong to me came up, that I put mine forward.
In Jewish Tradition (He was a Jew), you could only become a Rabbi (Teacher), starting from age 30. The exact age when He started stepping out.
Wait, did you just use the point that the son of god would follow Jewish traditions, when your entire argument based on him not sinning, is that he is the son of god, and thus, not able to sin, since he was not simply a man? As a man, he could and would be bound by traditions of the faith and society he was born in. If he was more, wouldn't he just preach what he feels at whatever age he feels it, knowing that this is his calling from birth? I do not think you can support both arguments and have a solid leg to stand on.
He is fully God, yet fully man. It is a mystery.
He put down His God-hood to become a lowly man in the tribes of the people He once chose to be His people. He had given them this tradition, which they used in a wrong way, but in itself was right. But I assume Mark will provide a more extensive explanation. My faith relies in large part on just that, faith. The proof of Him I have is one I cannot share since it is a personal experience. It has changed my life from violence and cursing to pacifism and a clean mouth practically overnight. The fruit of it is visible in my life. That is the only proof I can provide personally.
But perhaps it would need to start with checking the biblical definition of sin with yours and see if then, Christ would be sinless.
If you follow a Christian belief, before Jesus died from our sins, all men and women were born with original sin, with no way to get rid of it. So we are not even talking about sin that happened after at this point, we are all born with it. Hence we all sin.
Oh and John, MJ is an adult, if he wishes to spend his time rebuffing a point it took me a minute to put down, with an hour long rebuttal, that's how he chooses to spend his time. I neither feel sorry for "making" him do so, nor will the amount of time spent convince me that his point is right. They are called opinions for a reason, we all have them, I just chose to voice mine, when I let one that sounded so wrong to me came up, that I put mine forward.
Oh and Adam, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!! (That's said with happy laughter that we finally agree on something) I was just thinking that, that one sentence you put down is going to put MJ into "Explain Bible" mode, and he'll go to town on it. (Said with a friendly elbow in the ribs to MJ) It's not a bad thing, but.... Eh screw it. I can't make things worse. MJ, you write things like that, and then complain about not having time. That's all I'm going to say. Take it at face value.
(Doing Therapy)
(And it's the worse episode I've had in a REALLY long time)
And Christ was received through immaculate conception. Hence not subject to the original sin.
Nikolaj, I even copied it. Did you not see the part where he said you weren't going to change his mind? He said he went to Catholic school. He's heard it all before. From nuns, priests. People far more educated than you. (You weren't an alter boy were you Adam???) Stop wasting your time.
(Doing Therapy)
I am sorry Nikolaj, I am willing to have faith that it was an immaculate conception, but if you cannot allow for he could be the son of God, and be conceived normally, then we really have nothing to debate. I put forth Jesus, was born a man, has all of man's flaws, and thus sinned. If he fell to temptation, then he had man's urges and weaknesses, so this really isn't an argument for me to convince you, it was an argument for you to convince us all, that you were right. I do not think you have done so. There are many things to be taken on faith, but a man is a man, and while in this state of existence, subject to man's failings.
I was not trying to convince or force you. You are free to believe what you want. You started the discussion, stating that Christ would have sinned. I reacted on it in defense. If it seemed that I wanted to convert you, that was not my intent. I was merely defending my faith and (one of) the cardinal doctrine(s) in it.
Actually you started the debate by saying an absolute. An absolute, you can neither confirm, nor substantiate, other than by faith. I can have faith in a being I have little proof exists, because it makes sense. I however can not have faith that someone born as a man, to suffer and die for our sins, was made to be like us, but immune to all our failings. Never in all my 18 years of church, 8 years of CCD, or 4 years of Catholic High School, have ever had anyone, be it priest, father, deacon or layperson say that Jesus did not sin.
I'm not surprised as it's Catholic, though they should officially hold the dogma that Christ did not sin.
And the debate starts with the second voice. I did not mean to have a discussion about it.
I am not mad by the way. :)
I'm not mad either, I'm just saying, in order to forgive us for our sins, to be made immune to making them himself? How could he truly know or understand our plight? If you can answer that question in a logical, well thought out statement, I would be willing to listen.
He is all-knowing, and would thus not need to sin directly to understand sin.
Disclaimer: I'm not taking either side, since it's not a matter I'm personally too clear on.
JTM, with all do respect, that is the one line every Religious person uses to "end" an argument. In this case, let's say I take that for a fact, why even go through the motions? There was a reason why God, had his son be born, live and die for our sins. The being all-knowing, in this case, is a very, very weak argument for or against.
He was not immune to sin, He could always choose for it, yet He didn't. He got tempted just like we did but could resist. On the cross He took all our sins upon Himself and as is sometimes said 'became sin'. Then 'sin got killed'.
That's all well and good, the part that I don't buy, as a man, as he was born, grew up, ate, and did everything a man does. It is even said he married and had children. I must admit, if people didn't pick and choose which gospels should be in the bible, I would be more willing to believe the words of man on god. It also didn't help that the church sold indulgences in the middle ages, making whatever good they did moot with their corruption. So while I see your side and it is possible that it is correct, I think the real crux of issues with debating religious issues with religious people is the inability to see or consider things from another viewpoint. The last point I will make, dealing with absolutes, pisses people off to no extent. There are very few black and white issues, and making an issue black and white, with no real proof either way is a surefire way to get people to disagree. As a rule, debates on religion and politics on gaming boards is usually a good way to get disagreements to start.
Glad to see THAT'S over.
So, anyway, will running a player character as a holy cow offend a Hindu person?
It would probably offend the player as to likely not playing anymore. It's never over till I suck the marrow from their bones. :P
I must admit, if people didn't pick and choose which gospels should be in the bible, I would be more willing to believe the words of man on god. It also didn't help that the church sold indulgences in the middle ages, making whatever good they did moot with their corruption.
So, if you don't believe in the truth of Catholic doctrine, why even bring it up? Nikolaj apparently isn't Catholic.
JTM, Catholic to me is a generic term for being one who believes Jesus is the son of god. I did not get to any specific denomination. My statement was to reinforce that the word of man about god, weather written or oral is suspect to me. One can believe in god, and not his "priests or teachers".
You're zygoted into a world and are born as a cow, and are treated with reverence by the indigs.
Is this world probably offensive to people who practice Hinduism?
I'm inclined to say not. I'm not expert at Hinduism, but as Nikolaj said they expect that those who were people would become cows.
How would you ever verse out? The indigs aren't going to kill you, a cow isn't really capable of committing suicide, and versers don't die of old age.
That's tricky. Versers actually can die of old age under the right circumstances--e.g., if someone hits you with an aging spell and it pushes you old enough that you would probably die. (You would verse into the new world unaged in that case.) Zygoted versers age normally, and when they verse out it's an open question as to what age they will be in their various adjusting forms and when they stabilize. So you would probably die of old age as a cow.
Why would you assume he did [know his role]? We do know he was a carpenter for all but the last three years of his life. Using strictly logic, 30 years of age in the world in that time period was well past middle age, I am going to put forward, as many other religious and non religious scholars have, to say he did not find his "calling" till then.
As John observed, when he was 12 he stayed in the temple to "be about my father's business". This is interesting on several levels--it shows that he was bar mitzvahed at 12, not the usual 13, which is usual for illegitimate boys and thus shows that it was generally believed Jesus was not the son of Joseph the Carpenter, even by himself. It was the normal process that a boy was with his mother, staying at home and studying the scripture in the synagogue, until his bar mitzvah, at which point he became a man and went to work with his father to apprentice in his father's business. This also explains how it is that they got half way home without realizing he wasn't in the caravan--Mary, who traveled with the women and children, wasn't looking for him because he was a man now and should travel with the men; Joseph, traveling with the men, wasn't looking for him because he figured the boy wasn't ready to leave his mother. Obviously neither of them had made a big deal out of the fact that they had each been told he was the messiah and the son of God; yet obviously he knew it by the time he was twelve, and probably before then.
It was rather common for philosophers and religious teachers to begin teaching at thirty years old. It was considered the right age--old enough that they would know something about life. Jesus didn't wait until he was thirty because he didn't know. He waited until he was thirty because he did many things the way they were done. To do otherwise would have created more confusion than benefit.
As to the more fundamental question, the Bible clearly states that he had never sinned--"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf...." The original disciples believed that, and they had more direct knowledge than the modern theologians and theorists. Mary was still alive at the time of the resurrection, and I'm sure that if Jesus had been a bad boy she'd have mentioned it to someone.
If you follow a Christian belief, before Jesus died from our sins, all men and women were born with original sin, with no way to get rid of it.
It's a very complicated concept and different Christian groups view it differently. I don't even want to go into Augustine's explanation, because it strikes me as completely untenable (and the Eastern Orthodox church rejects much of Augustine's views). Pelagius took a very different position, but everyone rejects him as a heretic, even when they approach his position to some degree.
Nikolaj--immaculate conception doesn't mean what you think it means. It's a Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the birth of Mary, not the birth of Jesus.
We don't know the mechanics of how Jesus was conceived. Augustine asserts that Jesus did not inherit sin because it was inherited from a human father. C. S. Lewis suggests (and I do not know if someone else had this notion first) that God bypassed human parents entirely and used Mary as a surrogate in which He implanted a Zygote. I don't think it's important for us to know how it worked. What matters is that Jesus was without sin.
I however can not have faith that someone born as a man, to suffer and die for our sins, was made to be like us, but immune to all our failings.
I think that it's a mistake to say that Jesus was "immune to all our failings". He was tempted just like anyone else, "yet without sin", according to Hebrews. Adam, just because you're tempted doesn't mean you have to fall.
It is even said he married and had children.
That's not said by anyone within the first thousand years after the life of Christ.
I must admit, if people didn't pick and choose which gospels should be in the bible, I would be more willing to believe the words of man on god.
That's certainly a significant point. The answer to it is that the gospels which are in the Bible are the ones which were written in the first century. The other gospels which were excluded were written in the second and third centuries and attributed by their authors to authors in the first century to attempt to give them credibility in defending religious positions that were contrary to those of the first century authors.
I think the real crux of issues with debating religious issues with religious people is the inability to see or consider things from another viewpoint.
I ought to take offense at that statement.
For my part, I have examined the alternative views and found the flaws. I defend what I have determined to be the truth. I don't treat it as "absolute" in the sense that it cannot be attacked; I just have seen how it has withstood attacks of all sorts over what is now nearly two millennia.
Concerning the use of the word "Catholic", it is problematic because it refers both to the universal Christian faith and to that specific group of denominations that are distinct from the Orthodox, Coptic, and Protestant denominations. There are some peculiarly Catholic doctrines that the other groups reject--which is why there are four groups.
But Adam, Catholicism does teach that Jesus never sinned. I'm not sure why they never taught that to you, but that's the church's position.
--M. J. Young
I am going to end with, I'm sure they didn't make it a point, so there was yet another thing we had to take on faith. I heard that answer so often in religion class, that pretty much bled any of us that has a mind to think for ourselves out of the religion. You can only defend something with you have to take it on faith, on so many points, that it convinced me, that they were worried we were asking questions, and that they could not defend what they were saying with facts.
I am sticking with he was a man, he sinned, I have seen no argument to make me change my beliefs. We can go into all of it, about how women were a part of the ministry, but written out later, debate back and forth over whether things happened. I'll agree you can have your beliefs, and I mine, and I am not afraid to voice mine when I think that they are being absolutely infringed on.
So you felt I was infringing on you when I was replying on a question John asked me about a reply in which I tried to emphasize with Hindi? I'm sorry. That's a misunderstanding. I did not mean to infringe on you.
Empathize, I think you mean; understanding the feelings of, not increasing focus on a specific fact; roots emphasis/empathy.
I'll have to keep this world in mind for difficult players who tick me off. =D besides, it'll be fun to go through the torture of half-cow half-human stages over the next several worlds.
yeah, empathize, sorry about that.
...there was yet another thing we had to take on faith. I heard that answer so often in religion class, that pretty much bled any of us that has a mind to think for ourselves out of the religion.
Ah, yes, faith--the word everyone uses and no one really gets.
Most of what any of us knows we know by faith. That is, we read it in a book, or someone told us, and we trust the source.
I believe that time slows and mass increases as velocity reaches the speed of light because I believe that the people who told me this had good reason to know the truth of the matter and no particular reason to lie to me about it. I've never seen it happen. In fact, I'm given to understand that it's not an easy fact to observe directly, and you really have to do things like accelerate subatomic particles to eighty percent of the speed of light and observe that they get heavier and live longer, from your perspective. I've never done that. Nor have I ever put an atomic clock on a supersonic jet and compared it to a second such clock on the ground. Atomic clocks aren't in plentiful supply around my house, never mind jet planes.
What characterizes religious faith as distinct from the run-of-the-mill stuff by which we know that Barrack Obama is President (how do you know, but that you trust someone?) and George Washington camped at Valley Forge (were you there?) is that ultimately we are trusting 1) someone who claims to have heard directly from God and 2) God himself.
That does not mean that you have to empty your head and not think about it. If you're wondering whether Barrack Obama is indeed President of the United States or George Washington camped at Valley Forge, you can check multiple sources. If you want to know whether time dilation really occurs you can conduct the experiment yourself, or find several people who have done so until you are satisfied that they're not deceiving you.
In the same way, if you aren't sure about whether the New Testament is reliable, you can check the work of people like F. F. Bruce and Bruce Metzger, who have spent much of their lives studying the data, finding whether the books were indeed written by the people they claim as authors, whether those people were the eyewitnesses we believe them to be, whether there is reason to trust that they were honest and intelligent and understood what was happening; finding whether the documents we have are the same as the ones they wrote. There are many ways you can look for evidence supporting or refuting the claims of Christianity.
Ultimately, though, you have to take everything on faith. You can't actually be present for the resurrection; you have to decide whether you trust the accounts left by those who were. You can't watch Jesus feed thousands or heal the sick or raise Lazarus from the grave; you have to decide whether you trust the people who claim to have seen these things.
Then you have to decide whether you trust that the God Who claims to have done these things is a trustworthy person who will do the other things He promises.
That's faith. It's not more complicated than that which passes between people like us here on the board and in our daily lives all the time. It's whether you believe that the information you've been given is reliable, and whether the person from whom it originates is trustworthy.
I hope that helps.
--M. J. Young
New question!
Versers can be zygoted, and reborn into another body, not even necessarily a being remotely like what we know.
Would it really be so hard to conceive a verser whose body has been destroyed being "born" as an "artificial intelligence" within a robot?
Circumstances may make that happen, but I would shed that body and attempt to recreate mine. Sorry there are certain states that cannot be allowed to stand. MJ said at Ubercon he wouldn't allow his body to really be altered past a certain point and consider himself human. I agree to a point, I would go father than MJ, but not much more. The real question is what makes us human? I think it is our humanity, that makes you human, as long as you can blend in, and have empathy, I would argue any of the variations of me, are still human in those respects.
It would have to be a life form in some real sense. I think that would mean it would have to grow in some way. But I agree that it's not impossible--and I agree with Adam that the return to human form would be a priority for me.
--M. J. Young
So, then... we couldn't run Short Circuit with the character versing in as #5?
Why not? He was "born" when the lightning struck the power grid. So, the verser verses in at the moment of the lightning strike.
Did anyone ever consider why the lightning bolt brought him to life? He's an artificial intelligence. The lightning completely wiped his memory. Free of all of the programming, the AI was left to take over on its own. That's my theory anyway.
My theory is that your theory was considered by me and deemed impossible, so my reasoning after that is that the lightning which struck him was the equivalent of a 3 GE roll for the guys who had him hooked up to a power source, and a perfect example of how 1 in 1000 good fortune isn't necessarily the best thing to have happen. The lightning completely fried the system in such a way as it was set up as a perfect artificial intelligence, well beyond the bias curve of anything else in the world.