Religion has stepped on science's turf?

[SteveH]

I’d rather you had the humanity to see Enki’s point.

Enki was being sanctimonious and self-righteous, and trying to make me feel guilty. I answered his point fully earlier.

[Maeght]

I suppose Calvinists would say he has taken the effect of sin of those who are forgiven.
Other Christians would say the way is thus now open for all who choose it.
Universalists would say that all are saved because Jesus has done it.

I can sort of see what the last one means but no idea about the first two.

[Rhiannon]

Enki was being sanctimonious and self-righteous, and trying to make me feel guilty. I answered his point fully earlier.

Bullshit. His point was a legitimate one; the fallenness of humanity is supposed to include physical disability and illness as well as the capacity to sin. Or are you going to cherry pick the bits you like?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can sort of see what the last one means but no idea about the first two.

Calvinists believe that Salvation is only for a group known as the elect.In other words Jesus sacrifice is only meant for this few.

Arminians are those who believe that Jesus sacrifice is good for all and that anyone can avail themselves of the sacrifice but not all do or will.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bullshit. His point was a legitimate one; the fallenness of humanity is supposed to include physical disability and illness as well as the capacity to sin. Or are you going to cherry pick the bits you like?

No that is in no way the Christian doctrine. Fallenness refers to sin alone.

[Maeght]

Calvinists believe that Salvation is only for a group known as the elect.In other words Jesus sacrifice is only meant for this few.

Arminians are those who believe that Jesus sacrifice is good for all and that anyone can avail themselves of the sacrifice but not all do or will.

Right - thanks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What you appear to be implying is that no humans are actually ... err ... properly human. Bizarre notion.

What do you mean by that? That we are a different species than Homo sapiens?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the whole notion that being human or otherwise is somehow doctrinal is non-sensical. And the suggestion that whether or not a person is wholly human or not is down to someone else's doctrine is also deeply offensive and deeply dangerous.

I don't know what you mean when you talk about doctrine. I mean it is not Christian doctrine to think that one is superior or more human than anyone else.

I do subscribe to Augustines doctrine that we have a God shaped hole in our lives.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I’d rather you had the humanity to see Enki’s point.

Implying he is not properly human?

[ProfessorDavey]

What do you mean by that? That we are a different species than Homo sapiens?

Nope - but that is the inference of your the bizarre concept that no human is fully human.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't know what you mean when you talk about doctrine. I mean it is not Christian doctrine to think that one is superior or more human than anyone else.

I do subscribe to Augustines doctrine that we have a God shaped hole in our lives.

But you are implying that it is christian doctrine that no-one is fully human.

[ProfessorDavey]

No that is in no way the Christian doctrine. Fallenness refers to sin alone.

There is a long and very ugly history of christianity equating disability and illness with sinfulness.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is a long and very ugly history of christianity equating disability and illness with sinfulness.

Make good your claim.

There is a long history of Christian charity acknowledged by no less than Matt Dillahunty.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you are implying that it is christian doctrine that no-one is fully human.

Where have I denied we are.not al Homo sapiens.Until you have the balls to explain what you mean by fully human or properly human I can't help you in your enquiries can I?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - but that is the inference of your the bizarre concept that no human is fully human.

You need to define terms and show working out.

[Rhiannon]

Implying he is not properly human?

I have told you not to speak to me. If you address me again I will regard this as harassment.

[SteveH]

There is a long and very ugly history of christianity equating disability and illness with sinfulness.

Examples?

[Rhiannon]

Examples?

I know one personally and I've posted it here before. A woman with MS who was prayed for by her fundie mates and cut off when she didn't start walking again because they concluded her illness was due to 'unrepented sin'.

[SteveH]

I know one personally and I've posted it here before. A woman with MS who was prayed for by her fundie mates and cut off when she didn't start walking again because they concluded her illness was due to 'unrepented sin'.

Surely, that her lack of recovery was due to unrepented sin. Charismaniacs are a menace, but proper mainstream Christianity has never taught that disability and sickness are due to sin; in fact, the disabled, especially the learning-dasabled, were often regarded as especially holy.

[Roses]

I know one personally and I've posted it here before. A woman with MS who was prayed for by her fundie mates and cut off when she didn't start walking again because they concluded her illness was due to 'unrepented sin'.

Those fundies  are the ones in the wrong, not the woman with MS.

[SteveH]

Those fundies  are the ones in the wrong, not the woman with MS.

Like I said - charismaniacs (and fundies) are a menace. They are not mainstream Christianity, though. All ideologies have their lunatic fringe.

[jeremyp]

What do you mean by that? That we are a different species than Homo sapiens?

This whole thing started when Steve H claimed that Jesus being "fully human" meant not that he was human in the sense that we are all human fallible creatures but that he achieved some sort of Platonic ideal humanness that we fall short of (the "Platonic ideal" words are mine, not Steve's). He claims that that is what "fully human" means in the statement "Christ is fully God and fully human".

His interpretation is problematic in two ways. The first is that it means that we humans are not human, which is absurd given that "human" is a word that is defined to reference our species and also, apparently, offensive to some posters here. This is what we have been discussing up till now.

The interpretation is also problematic in that, in the context of the statement, it doesn't make sense. If you want to use that interpretation of "fully" for humans, you need to use the same interpretation for gods too, which implies there are other gods that are less than perfect.

[SteveH]

There is no such verb as "to reference".

[jeremyp]

There is no such verb as "to reference".

Wrong

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reference

[SteveH]

Wrong

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reference

Well, there damn well shouldn't be, when we can say "refer to".