The Minimal Facts for the Resurrection of Christ.

[Wyote]

One has to wonder why they are so minimal
I measured them on the first page, it's gotta be less than 3 inches
Sad

 

[meowzician]

If I were to offer you information about looking more into coming back to Christianity (which, we already had that experiment), would you consider that an invitation?

If it is prefaced by the words, "If you ever decide you want to look into this...," then no, I would not consider that an invitation.

Then why does he "speak in a language I can understand"?

He is another stage two person of faith. He shares many of your assumptions, such as that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that divinely inspired means it is without error. It doesn't mean he is speaking TO you. It means he speaks LIKE you.

My when we were talking about what is different in Judaism, I said that Judaism makes humans out to be "not that bad." I gave examples... "I don't murder, I follow the Law, I don't do anything that bad." You said I was wrong. Rather, you said, "I don't remember using those words." The concept is the exact same.

Not fallen = Not that bad

I vaguely remember this, but not enough to reply. Since you have objected twice now, I would like to address it but can't. Can I make a request? If you feel we have an unresolved issue, please provide me with the thread name and post number (or link to the post) along with an well articulated summary what exactly it is that you have a problem with. I will do my best to address your concern. But if that is asking too much (and I do realize that doing that is a lot of work) then please don't continue to object to something I am unable to respond to.

From your recent posts, "not that bad" appear to have been YOUR words, correct? I suspect that this may be a case of me disagreeing with something else in your paragraph, not that specific thing.

 

[QuickTwist]

If it is prefaced by the words, "If you ever decide you want to look into this...," then no, I would not consider that an invitation.

I am really tempted to post a video of Dr. Brown destroying Tovia Singer right now... but I won't...

He is another stage two person of faith. He shares many of your assumptions, such as that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that divinely inspired means it is without error. It doesn't mean he is speaking TO you. It means he speaks LIKE you.

He "Talks like me" because he's trying to evangelize me. A Jew does not talk about the same things that Gentiles do or in the same way. You already said that was the big thing that turned you away from Christ and towards Judaism.

I vaguely remember this, but not enough to reply. Since you have objected twice now, I would like to address it but can't. Can I make a request? If you feel we have an unresolved issue, please provide me with the thread name and post number (or link to the post) along with an well articulated summary what exactly it is that you have a problem with. I will do my best to address your concern. But if that is asking too much (and I do realize that doing that is a lot of work) then please don't continue to object to something I am unable to respond to.

Not worth the time, honestly.

I don't hold grudges. My savior taught me that.

 

[aeon]

You know... we know stuff about history cuz people wrote stuff down. Kinda like we do on this forum...

All that can be known is that someone wrote something down if you are witnessing the letters of their hand.

If you consider a copy, or a translation, or an interpretation, your understanding is that someone wrote something down.

A cross-cultural appreciation of what gets written down, what is hid, and what is burned should offer a worth of the word, and its potential veracity.

History is not about the past. History is a present day, in the moment consideration of memory, the stories told, and the written word, among other things.

History gives you access to many things. Knowledge of the past is not one of those things.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[QuickTwist]

All that can be known is that someone wrote something down if you are witnessing the letters of their hand.

If you consider a copy, or a translation, or an interpretation, your understanding is that someone wrote something down.

A cross-cultural appreciation of what gets written down, what is hid, and what is burned should offer a worth of the word, and its potential veracity.

History is not about the past. History is a present day, in the moment consideration of memory, the stories told, and the written word, among other things.

History gives you access to many things. Knowledge of the past is not one of those things.

Cheers,
Ian

I mean, I don't want to sound arrogant, or whatever, but like, this is just the common talking point I picked up from you at the beginning... And historians largely disagree with you.

So, go ahead. Hold the opinion you want. Just know that the way you think about it is not the way the people who do history think about it.

 

[QuickTwist]

One has to wonder why they are so minimal
I measured them on the first page, it's gotta be less than 3 inches
Sad

There is an expanded list of 12 I can share if you want...

 

[meowzician]

I am really tempted to post a video of Dr. Brown destroying Tovia Singer right now... but I won't...

Thank you. I'm not even remotely interested in listening to two stage two individuals debate. I haven't been at stage two for years and years.

He "Talks like me" because he's trying to evangelize me.

Nah. As I said, he simply shares some of your assumptions, assumptions that I no longer share. If I tried to speak with you from the POV that I am at now, you would blow up and likely accuse me of all sorts of untrue things like not believing in God, not believing in the Torah, etc. (I anticipate this based on reactions from other stage two believers that I've tried to speak to in the past.) You would not be able to UNDERSTAND what I'm saying. With Tovia Singer you are going to disagree. I'm not expecting ANYTHING from you except disagreement. But at least you understand what he is saying.

A Jew does not talk about the same things that Gentiles do or in the same way. You already said that was the big thing that turned you away from Christ and towards Judaism.

I can see how this could sound inconsistent, but I don’t mean it that way. When I said Tovia Singer “speaks the same language,” I meant that he operates within a set of assumptions and methods that are familiar to you, especially treating Scripture as authoritative and building arguments directly from the text in a way that fits the style of reasoning you are using in this conversation.

When I previously said that Jews often operate from a different paradigm, I was not talking about textual literalism. I was referring to a broader religious and ethical framing. In many Christian contexts, the emphasis is on the individual being spiritually broken and redeemed through Jesus. In many Jewish contexts, the emphasis is more on the world being broken and human beings being responsible for repairing it through action, justice, and communal responsibility.

So I was describing two different levels of comparison. Are you hearing that? Because many times you seem to miss my main jist. Singer fits within one interpretive style that overlaps with your framework, even though the wider Jewish tradition includes approaches that operate from a very different set of assumptions about human responsibility and religious purpose.

 

[aeon]

I don't hold grudges. My savior taught me that.

Clearly, the lesson did not fulfill its promise.

You addressed me in this thread with a pejorative slur.

You may retract that, and apologize, or go about your way, which is evidence of hypocrisy, and tantamount to heresy.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8,
Ian

 

[QuickTwist]

Nah. As I said, he simply shares some of your assumptions, assumptions that I no longer share. If I tried to speak with you from the POV that I am at now, you would blow up and likely accuse me of all sorts of untrue things like not believing in God, not believing in the Torah, etc. (I anticipate this based on reactions from other stage two believers that I've tried to speak to in the past.) You would not be able to UNDERSTAND what I'm saying. With Tovia Singer you are going to disagree. I'm not expecting ANYTHING from you except disagreement. But at least you understand what he is saying.

Let me ask you... are you a subjectivist?

When I previously said that Jews often operate from a different paradigm, I was not talking about textual literalism. I was referring to a broader religious and ethical framing. In many Christian contexts, the emphasis is on the individual being spiritually broken and redeemed through Jesus. In many Jewish contexts, the emphasis is more on the world being broken and human beings being responsible for repairing it through action, justice, and communal responsibility.

If humans are the problem, then they can't also be the solution. How would that even work? "Just try harder"? Like we haven't been doing that for thousands of years? This perspective makes no logical sense to me.

 

[QuickTwist]

Clearly, the lesson did not fulfill its promise.

You addressed me in this thread with a pejorative slur.

You may retract that, and apologize, or go about your way, which is evidence of hypocrisy, and tantamount to heresy.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8,
Ian

Okay, hang on... You are accusing me of being a hypocrite and I need to apologize to you???

So what was the big mean slur I called you?

 

[meowzician]

Let me ask you... are you a subjectivist?

Please listen especially carefully. My answer is going to have TWO parts, and unless you hear them both, you will come away misunderstanding me.

No, I'm not a subjectivist because I believe confidently that an objective universe exists--meaning that the universe exists independently of human perception. HOWEVER, I also understand that human senses, perception, and cognition are all FLAWED. This means that no matter how hard we try, that while the universe may be objective, our understanding of the universe is ALWAYS going to contain error. This will be true even with those individuals who through careful study and reasoning come very close to the truth. WE ARE ALL WRONG, though some are more wrong than others.

This is why even when I say something confidently, even when I argue for it assertively, I ALWAYS have up in the back of my mind a sign that cautions, "You may be wrong." It is why even when I am debating people with whom I disagree, I am still receiving their points and accumulating new data, turning it over and over in my mind, because there is always the possibility that they are right and I am wrong.

It means that even when I am debating assertively with you, my friend, that there is always a part of me devoted to listening to you with humility and openness. I hope that is reassuring to you.

My ASSUMPTION is that I am wrong about things. I simply am not conscious of where those errors lie, and I am constantly seeking to root it out.

If humans are the problem, then they can't also be the solution. How would that even work? "

I don't see the problem here. As an elementary school educator, I often require my students to brainstorm and implement solutions to problems they've created. As an adult, I do this in my own life all the time.

 

[QuickTwist]

Please listen especially carefully. My answer is going to have TWO parts, and unless you hear them both, you will come away misunderstanding me.

No, I'm not a subjectivist because I believe confidently that an objective universe exists--meaning that the universe exists independently of human perception. HOWEVER, I also understand that human senses, perception, and cognition are all FLAWED. This means that no matter how hard we try, that while the universe may be objective, our understanding of the universe is ALWAYS going to contain error. This will be true even with those individuals who through careful study and reasoning come very close to the truth. WE ARE ALL WRONG, though some are more wrong than others.

This is why even when I say something confidently, even when I argue for it assertively, I ALWAYS have up in the back of my mind a sign that cautions, "You may be wrong." It is why even when I am debating people with whom I disagree, I am still receiving their points and accumulating new data, turning it over and over in my mind, because there is always the possibility that they are right and I am wrong.

It means that even when I am debating assertively with you, my friend, that there is always a part of me devoted to listening to you with humility and openness. I hope that is reassuring to you.

My ASSUMPTION is that I am wrong about things. I simply am not conscious of where those errors lie, and I am constantly seeking to find out.

Congrats! You just discovered Original Sin!

I don't see the problem here. As an elementary school educator, I often require my students to brainstorm and implement solutions to problems they've created. As an adult, I do this in my own life all the time.

Who is "teaching" humanity here?

 

[Wyote]

There is an expanded list of 12 I can share if you want...

I bet you got more than 12 somewhere

 

[meowzician]

Congrats! You just discovered Original Sin!

I don't see the connection in the slightest.

I'm speaking of honest mistakes which carry no blame, since it is intellectual error and not moral failure.

Original sins assume many things that I don't agree with, among them the idea that descendents inherit the guilt and punishment of the moral failures of an individual who is their ancestor. Ezekiel 18:20: The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Apples and oranges, my friend.

Please notice that I've actually made two separate points here. The first is that an intellectual error is not the same as moral failure. The second is that one person's moral failure can't be inherited by someone else.

Who is "teaching" humanity here?

Many people, including me. Soy la maestra extraordinaria! LOL

 

[QuickTwist]

I'm speaking of honest mistakes which carry no blame, since it is intellectual error and not moral failure.

And what is the difference? As far as I know, the Hebrew word for "evil" means something much closer to "badness" than "moral failing."

Ezekiel 18:20: The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Yup, Christians totally affirm this as well.

Many people, including me. Soy la maestra extraordinaria! LOL

You gave an analogy saying humanity is like a child... Who is the teacher?

 

[meowzician]

And what is the difference? As far as I know, the Hebrew word for "evil" means something much closer to "badness" than "moral failing."

Right now I'm speaking as just me, from a brain that thinks in English, and a culture that includes the influence of ancient Israel and modern Judaism but is not limited to that influence. I think that since we are both English speaking members of western civilization, that you you heard me and understood me quite clearly.

Yup, Christians totally affirm this as well.

I'm going to make an exception to my rule of not engaging in stage two debates because I do think you are ready for this one.

How can you say that, and also affirm Original Sin? First let's make sure we both have the same understanding of what Original Sin means. In classic Christianity, Original Sin means that all humanity is not only flawed due to Adam's sin, but inherits his guilt, that every human heart from the moment of conception is stained with the blame for that moral failure and in need of redemption. Is that what you affirm?

Forgive me for being so pedantic about this, but I ask because I occasionally run into Christians who mistakenly think that Original Sin means the same thing as Sinful Nature.

You gave an analogy saying humanity is like a child... Who is the teacher?

No, I never used that analogy. I didn't use any analogy at all. I stated in the most literal, non-figurative way that our senses, perception, and cognition are flawed.

I'm not bothered that you remembered this incorrectly. It actually tells me that you are thinking about what I'm saying on a deeper level, because you are putting my ideas into your own words. (What you are remembering is your own words that went through your mind as you read my post).

And my answer is still the same. Many people teach humanity, including me. There is nothing extraordinary about this.

 

[QuickTwist]

Right now I'm speaking as just me, from a brain that thinks in English, and a culture that includes the influence of ancient Israel and modern Judaism but is not limited to that influence. I think that since we are both English speaking members of western civilization, that you you heard me and understood me quite clearly.

I mean, that's fine if you want to punt here... I just wasn't expecting that...

How can you say that, and also affirm Original Sin? First let's make sure we both have the same undertanding of what Original Sin means. In classic Christianity, Original Sin means that all humanity is not only flawed due to Adam's sin, but inherits his guilt, that every human heart from the moment of conception is stained with the blame for that moral failure and in need of redemption. Is that what you affirm?

What is sin according to Jesus?

No, I never used that analogy. I didn't use any analogy at all. I stated in the most literal, non-figurative way that our senses, perception, and cognition are flawed.

And my answer is still the same. Many people teach humanity, including me. There is nothing extraordinary about this.

I was asking about the LOGICAL problem you have... The source of the problem cannot be the solution... It is a metaphysical impossibility... It's essentially this:



You need a catalysts... So what is the catalyst?

 

[QuickTwist]

I bet you got more than 12 somewhere

Naw... Those twelve are spread over about 1K pages...

 

[meowzician]

I mean, that's fine if you want to punt here... I just wasn't expecting that...

Hey, I gotta keep you hopping, or you'll get bored and go play somewhere else. LOL

What is sin according to Jesus?

I'm not sure why you are bringing up Jesus.

The doctrine of Original Sin was an idea proposed by Augustine in the early 5th century. Although it became the norm in Christianity, no one that lived before Augustine would have conceived of such a thing, including Jesus.

Jesus would have had the following categories related to what we call sin in English: chet חֵטְא (sin), chata חָטָא (sin), avon עָוֹן (iniquity), pesha פֶּשַׁע (transgression), shegagah שְׁגָגָה (error), ma’al מַעַל (trespass), zadon זָדוֹן (presumptuousness), and asham אָשָׁם (guilt).

We can discuss that if you wish, but I don't see why--I don't see how it relates to your topic of Original Sin.

I was asking about the LOGICAL problem you have... The source of the problem cannot be the solution...

I have not found that to be the case.

It is a metaphysical impossibility... It's essentially this:

View attachment 102095

You need a catalysts... So what is the catalyst?

First, I LOVE your analogy. It's clever, fun, and communicative.

But human learning doesn't function the same way as an electrical circuit. : As much as I love your analogy, it doesn't apply.

 

[QuickTwist]

I'm not sure why you are bringing up Jesus.

Because Augustine was a Christian AKA Christ follower AKA follower of Jesus.

We can discuss that if you wish, but I don't see why--I don't see how it relates to your topic of Original Sin.

I'll just answer it...

"Sin" has a technical definition...

It means, in archery, anything that does not hit the bulls eye.

Therefore, a sin is anything that is not perfect...

Do you see now why Christians view themselves as sinners? Who can claim perfection? Do you now see how Christians believe in Original SIN?

I have not found that to be the case.

Doesn't matter if you have found that to be the case or not...

It literally does not work with anything else...

The reasons the circuit breaker is clever is because you know it doesn't work... But suddenly, when it is people we are talking about, the rules completely change. Why is that?