Just supposing...........

[Leonard James]

But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?

Correct, so Jesus was God in human form.

The argument that you and others use seems to be that there is no God, and therefore anything that is claimed for God is impossible.  I'm afraid that I don't subscribe to that, preferring to have a more open mind than that way of thinking.

He wasn't in human form if, as you said, normal human conditions don't apply. Why did he eat and drink and die on the cross if normal human conditions don't apply?

[floo]

But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?

Correct, so Jesus was God in human form.

The argument that you and others use seems to be that there is no God, and therefore anything that is claimed for God is impossible.  I'm afraid that I don't subscribe to that, preferring to have a more open mind than that way of thinking.

He wasn't in human form if, as you said, normal human conditions don't apply. Why did he eat and drink and die on the cross if normal human conditions don't apply?

Good question!

[Shaker]

But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?

Correct, so Jesus was God in human form.

The argument that you and others use seems to be that there is no God, and therefore anything that is claimed for God is impossible.  I'm afraid that I don't subscribe to that, preferring to have a more open mind than that way of thinking.

Gosh, just look how open it is - it'll take anything in.

[Leonard James]

But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?

Correct, so Jesus was God in human form.

The argument that you and others use seems to be that there is no God, and therefore anything that is claimed for God is impossible.  I'm afraid that I don't subscribe to that, preferring to have a more open mind than that way of thinking.

Gosh, just look how open it is - it'll take anything in.

Sort of! Anything that refers to their "God" ... but totally closed to all other beliefs. 

[Sassy]

But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?

Correct, so Jesus was God in human form.

The argument that you and others use seems to be that there is no God, and therefore anything that is claimed for God is impossible.  I'm afraid that I don't subscribe to that, preferring to have a more open mind than that way of thinking.
Fully human with a divine nature - without sin.

Gosh, just look how open it is - it'll take anything in.

Jesus was NOT God in human form. He embodied the person of God in human form. He made known what the real God was like.
Jesus was fully human. He was the son of God, Jesus came in flesh.

[Alien]

But I thought the Bible says that Jesus is "God" made man. Is that not correct?

Correct, so Jesus was God in human form.

The argument that you and others use seems to be that there is no God, and therefore anything that is claimed for God is impossible.  I'm afraid that I don't subscribe to that, preferring to have a more open mind than that way of thinking.
Fully human with a divine nature - without sin.

Gosh, just look how open it is - it'll take anything in.

Jesus was NOT God in human form. He embodied the person of God in human form. He made known what the real God was like.
Jesus was fully human. He was the son of God, Jesus came in flesh.

Compare the mainstream understanding which is:

Jesus was NOT God in human form. He embodied the person of God in human form. He made known what the real God was like.
Jesus was fully human. He was the son of God, Jesus came in flesh.

[Shaker]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

[Hope]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian.  John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.

[Shaker]

Well I'm glad we cleared that one up 

[floo]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian.  John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.

Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!

[Shaker]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian.  John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.

Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!

... which is interesting and instructive for a religion peddled by its adherents as the final and absolute truth.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian.  John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.

Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!

The evidence is wrong doing and the attempts of the morally romantic to eliminate that evidence from their minds and consciences for the salvation of there own egos.

[Shaker]

Good old Vlad - often incoherent but usually good for the laughs if nothing else.

[floo]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

Not sure which belief Sass adheres to, Shaker, but it certainly isn't mainstream Christian.  John's Gospel was written for the express purpose of countering beliefs like that which Sass indicates here, but being 'sold' as Christian teaching.

Christianity has so many doctrines, dogmas, sects and cults, with no evidence to support any of them!

The evidence is wrong doing and the attempts of the morally romantic to eliminate that evidence from their minds and consciences for the salvation of there own egos.

Eh?

[Gordon]

The evidence is wrong doing and the attempts of the morally romantic to eliminate that evidence from their minds and consciences for the salvation of there own egos.

It looks as if your random sentence generator is playing up again, Vlad.

[floo]

The evidence is wrong doing and the attempts of the morally romantic to eliminate that evidence from their minds and consciences for the salvation of there own egos.

It looks as if your random sentence generator is playing up again, Vlad.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The evidence is wrong doing and the attempts of the morally romantic to eliminate that evidence from their minds and consciences for the salvation of there own egos.

It looks as if your random sentence generator is playing up again, Vlad.

No I think you are just demonstrating the second piece of evidence vis:
The attempt by the morally romantic to eliminate the existence of wrong doing ( with yer moral relativism and moral non realism ) from your minds.

[Shaker]

Anyone?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Anyone?

I would be pissed too if I was an the BBC had started listening to people like John Gray and started treating antitheists like Dawkins as eccentrics.

[Shaker]

Anyone?

I would be pissed too if I was an the BBC had started listening to people like John Gray and started treating antitheists like Dawkins as eccentrics.

I'll wait for that one to come out in English.

[Alien]

The evidence is wrong doing and the attempts of the morally romantic to eliminate that evidence from their minds and consciences for the salvation of there own egos.

It looks as if your random sentence generator is playing up again, Vlad.

Playing the man again, Gordon, rather than the ball? Pity. Some others here seem incapable of doing much else apart from that. Not so you.

[Alien]

Was Jesus God in human form or not?

Can't you lot even get your daft fish stories straight?

Are you saying that because someone claiming to be a Christian* has misunderstood something important then Christianity is wrong? Hope not. Why? Because if someone claimed something for (strong) atheism, but misrepresented it (for whatever reason, perhaps by accident), then that would not thereby mean (strong) atheism is wrong. Same applies for Christianity or any other belief.

* Please note that I am not here stating whether Sassy is a Christian or not.

[Shaker]

Are you saying that because someone claiming to be a Christian* has misunderstood something important then Christianity is wrong?

No. I'm saying that you have no methodology to be able to state that somebody else's - to you - "misunderstanding" of something in Christianity actually is a misunderstanding, because every time somebody asks you to provide one you bottle it. Goodness only knows we've had enough evidence of this over the months, haven't we?

The exact same applies to your characterisation of something as "important." That may very well be your opinion, but that's all it is because you refuse to provide any means of determining it to be such.

[Leonard James]

* Please note that I am not here stating whether Sassy is a Christian or not.

Very wise of you!

Being a Christian (i.e. following his teachings) seems to include so many different interpretations of what he taught that it has become an unintelligible hotch-potch of ideas. It seems from reading this forum that very few Christians agree entirely about everything.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you saying that because someone claiming to be a Christian* has misunderstood something important then Christianity is wrong?

No. I'm saying that you have no methodology to be able to state that somebody else's - to you - "misunderstanding" of something in Christianity actually is a misunderstanding, because every time somebody asks you to provide one you bottle it. Goodness only knows we've had enough evidence of this over the months, haven't we?

The exact same applies to your characterisation of something as "important." That may very well be your opinion, but that's all it is because you refuse to provide any means of determining it to be such.

I think it's fairly clear from a biblical, historical and churches doctrine point of view what is orthodox, mainstream Christianity and what isn't.

How philosophy works Shaker is that ideas or notions are put forward into the arena and weighed up.

In theology and religion ideas and notions which aim to be Affective and effective in soliciting whole life commitment  are put to people for the weighing up.

This is why some talk bluntly but rightly of Antitheists being evangelical and fundamentalist because they seek antitheist commitment in thinking and practice and in spreading that thinking and practice in wider society.