Philosophy Now Forum

The concept of God , philosophically pertains to what attribute of the concept is the univerally definitive attribute .

I submit that only candidate for the definite attribute is system (as opposed to chaos) This attribute is definitive as it applies to every known concept of God: monotheist , trinitarian, pantheist, and polytheist..

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 9:13 am ThinkOfOne, the question of which words in the Gospels are more probably those of Jesus of Nazareth has already been studied by professional historians .The process and findings are in the public domain.

The Jesus Seminar was a group of scholars who investigated the historical Jesus and his teachings. Founded in 1985 by Robert W. Funk under the auspices of the Westar Institute, the seminar aimed to determine what Jesus likely said and did, distinguishing between what was attributed to him by the early church and what was possibly said by him.

Westar began in 1985 when Robert W. Funk invited 30 New Testament scholars to join him in the Jesus Seminar, a collaborative inquiry about the historical Jesus. Since its founding, Westar has held a series of innovative seminars on the origins of Christianity. But Funk’s founding vision was larger than scholarship for its own sake. His aim was to make religious literacy as ubiquitous as reading, writing, and arithmetic.

I'm well aware that, for the most part, there's a clear distinction between the words attributed to Jesus and the commentary NT writers wrapped around them. I'm also aware that a clear distinction needs to be made between the words attributed to Jesus and the commentary Christians have made about Jesus subsequent to the NT writers.

Martin, on the other hand, does not seem to be able to make that distinction. Not sure where Martin is getting lost. As but one example, Martin posted the following:

1. *Son of God*: Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, affirming His divine nature (John 10:36).

The fact is that Jesus was NOT "affirming His divine nature" as many Christians seem to believe; as Martin seems to believe. As I pointed out to Martin earlier:

In no way can this reasonably be taken as Jesus claiming to be literally the son of God.

It's a simple metaphor. Jesus calls for all of His followers to make themselves sons of God as He was a "son of God".

Everyone who has a been “born from above” has been born of God AND therefore has God as their “heavenly Father” AND therefore are “sons of God”. It’s a really simple metaphor.

Matthew 5:9“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Luke 6:35“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.
John 12:36 While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.
Matthew 6:26“Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.

What's more, Christians often invoke the metaphor in reference to themselves: calling themselves "a child of God"; calling God "Father". It's ridiculous that so many of them believe that Jesus is claiming to be literally the son of God when He invokes the same metaphor.

This is the best case you can make? Mindlessly paraphrasing a Christian website and pasting answers from Christian Chat engine?

Do you believe that Jesus was ""affirming His divine nature" OR do you believe that Jesus was employing a metaphor?

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 10:40 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 9:13 am ThinkOfOne, the question of which words in the Gospels are more probably those of Jesus of Nazareth has already been studied by professional historians .The process and findings are in the public domain.

The Jesus Seminar was a group of scholars who investigated the historical Jesus and his teachings. Founded in 1985 by Robert W. Funk under the auspices of the Westar Institute, the seminar aimed to determine what Jesus likely said and did, distinguishing between what was attributed to him by the early church and what was possibly said by him.

Westar began in 1985 when Robert W. Funk invited 30 New Testament scholars to join him in the Jesus Seminar, a collaborative inquiry about the historical Jesus. Since its founding, Westar has held a series of innovative seminars on the origins of Christianity. But Funk’s founding vision was larger than scholarship for its own sake. His aim was to make religious literacy as ubiquitous as reading, writing, and arithmetic.

I'm well aware that, for the most part, there's a clear distinction between the words attributed to Jesus and the commentary NT writers wrapped around them. I'm also aware that a clear distinction needs to be made between the words attributed to Jesus and the commentary Christians have made about Jesus subsequent to the NT writers.

Martin, on the other hand, does not seem to be able to make that distinction. Not sure where Martin is getting lost. As but one example, Martin posted the following:

1. *Son of God*: Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, affirming His divine nature (John 10:36).

The fact is that Jesus was NOT "affirming His divine nature" as many Christians seem to believe; as Martin seems to believe. As I pointed out to Martin earlier:

In no way can this reasonably be taken as Jesus claiming to be literally the son of God.

It's a simple metaphor. Jesus calls for all of His followers to make themselves sons of God as He was a "son of God".

Everyone who has a been “born from above” has been born of God AND therefore has God as their “heavenly Father” AND therefore are “sons of God”. It’s a really simple metaphor.

Matthew 5:9“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Luke 6:35“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.
John 12:36 While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.
Matthew 6:26“Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.

What's more, Christians often invoke the metaphor in reference to themselves: calling themselves "a child of God"; calling God "Father". It's ridiculous that so many of them believe that Jesus is claiming to be literally the son of God when He invokes the same metaphor.

This is the best case you can make? Mindlessly paraphrasing a Christian website and pasting answers from Christian Chat engine?

Do you believe that Jesus was ""affirming His divine nature" OR do you believe that Jesus was employing a metaphor?

I don't know and I don't much care. If an idea is reasonable and /or beautiful then I tend to like it. Trinitarianism makes sense to me in my own way.

I don't believe in any magical interventionist miracles, if that is what you are asking.

It matters that scholars (I am not a scholar) examine religious ideas for their historicity because we need to know what religionists are telling us; some of them know very little history or anthropology and come to daft conclusions.

You are too rude to be a scholar so your ideas are suspect.

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 12:27 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 10:40 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 9:13 am ThinkOfOne, the question of which words in the Gospels are more probably those of Jesus of Nazareth has already been studied by professional historians .The process and findings are in the public domain.

The Jesus Seminar was a group of scholars who investigated the historical Jesus and his teachings. Founded in 1985 by Robert W. Funk under the auspices of the Westar Institute, the seminar aimed to determine what Jesus likely said and did, distinguishing between what was attributed to him by the early church and what was possibly said by him.

Westar began in 1985 when Robert W. Funk invited 30 New Testament scholars to join him in the Jesus Seminar, a collaborative inquiry about the historical Jesus. Since its founding, Westar has held a series of innovative seminars on the origins of Christianity. But Funk’s founding vision was larger than scholarship for its own sake. His aim was to make religious literacy as ubiquitous as reading, writing, and arithmetic.

I'm well aware that, for the most part, there's a clear distinction between the words attributed to Jesus and the commentary NT writers wrapped around them. I'm also aware that a clear distinction needs to be made between the words attributed to Jesus and the commentary Christians have made about Jesus subsequent to the NT writers.

Martin, on the other hand, does not seem to be able to make that distinction. Not sure where Martin is getting lost. As but one example, Martin posted the following:

1. *Son of God*: Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, affirming His divine nature (John 10:36).

The fact is that Jesus was NOT "affirming His divine nature" as many Christians seem to believe; as Martin seems to believe. As I pointed out to Martin earlier:

In no way can this reasonably be taken as Jesus claiming to be literally the son of God.

It's a simple metaphor. Jesus calls for all of His followers to make themselves sons of God as He was a "son of God".

Everyone who has a been “born from above” has been born of God AND therefore has God as their “heavenly Father” AND therefore are “sons of God”. It’s a really simple metaphor.

Matthew 5:9“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Luke 6:35“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.
John 12:36 While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.
Matthew 6:26“Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.

What's more, Christians often invoke the metaphor in reference to themselves: calling themselves "a child of God"; calling God "Father". It's ridiculous that so many of them believe that Jesus is claiming to be literally the son of God when He invokes the same metaphor.

This is the best case you can make? Mindlessly paraphrasing a Christian website and pasting answers from Christian Chat engine?

Do you believe that Jesus was ""affirming His divine nature" OR do you believe that Jesus was employing a metaphor?

I don't know and I don't much care. If an idea is reasonable and /or beautiful then I tend to like it. Trinitarianism makes sense to me in my own way.

I don't believe in any magical interventionist miracles, if that is what you are asking.

It matters that scholars (I am not a scholar) examine religious ideas for their historicity because we need to know what religionists are telling us; some of them know very little history or anthropology and come to daft conclusions.

You are too rude to be a scholar so your ideas are suspect.

What he won't understand, by hermetic, hostile, belittling, grandiose, narcissistic, will, is that they are metaphorically literal. God is an ultimate metaphor. Modern Greek for conveyor belt. Do chairs have arms and legs? It is very hard work to avoid metaphor. Do clocks have faces?

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 12:27 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 10:40 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 9:13 am ThinkOfOne, the question of which words in the Gospels are more probably those of Jesus of Nazareth has already been studied by professional historians .The process and findings are in the public domain.

The Jesus Seminar was a group of scholars who investigated the historical Jesus and his teachings. Founded in 1985 by Robert W. Funk under the auspices of the Westar Institute, the seminar aimed to determine what Jesus likely said and did, distinguishing between what was attributed to him by the early church and what was possibly said by him.

Westar began in 1985 when Robert W. Funk invited 30 New Testament scholars to join him in the Jesus Seminar, a collaborative inquiry about the historical Jesus. Since its founding, Westar has held a series of innovative seminars on the origins of Christianity. But Funk’s founding vision was larger than scholarship for its own sake. His aim was to make religious literacy as ubiquitous as reading, writing, and arithmetic.

I'm well aware that, for the most part, there's a clear distinction between the words attributed to Jesus and the commentary NT writers wrapped around them. I'm also aware that a clear distinction needs to be made between the words attributed to Jesus and the commentary Christians have made about Jesus subsequent to the NT writers.

Martin, on the other hand, does not seem to be able to make that distinction. Not sure where Martin is getting lost. As but one example, Martin posted the following:

1. *Son of God*: Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, affirming His divine nature (John 10:36).

The fact is that Jesus was NOT "affirming His divine nature" as many Christians seem to believe; as Martin seems to believe. As I pointed out to Martin earlier:

In no way can this reasonably be taken as Jesus claiming to be literally the son of God.

It's a simple metaphor. Jesus calls for all of His followers to make themselves sons of God as He was a "son of God".

Everyone who has a been “born from above” has been born of God AND therefore has God as their “heavenly Father” AND therefore are “sons of God”. It’s a really simple metaphor.

Matthew 5:9“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Luke 6:35“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men.
John 12:36 While you have the Light, believe in the Light, so that you may become sons of Light.
Matthew 6:26“Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them.

What's more, Christians often invoke the metaphor in reference to themselves: calling themselves "a child of God"; calling God "Father". It's ridiculous that so many of them believe that Jesus is claiming to be literally the son of God when He invokes the same metaphor.

This is the best case you can make? Mindlessly paraphrasing a Christian website and pasting answers from Christian Chat engine?

Do you believe that Jesus was ""affirming His divine nature" OR do you believe that Jesus was employing a metaphor?

I don't know and I don't much care. If an idea is reasonable and /or beautiful then I tend to like it. Trinitarianism makes sense to me in my own way.

I don't believe in any magical interventionist miracles, if that is what you are asking.

It matters that scholars (I am not a scholar) examine religious ideas for their historicity because we need to know what religionists are telling us; some of them know very little history or anthropology and come to daft conclusions.

You are too rude to be a scholar so your ideas are suspect.

What do you think of the following?

In psychology, the truth can be offensive due to insecurity and the need to maintain a positive self-image. When a truth challenges one's self-concept, it can trigger insecurity and a desire to reconcile the new information with one's existing beliefs. This can lead to feeling hurt, defensive, or even angry, especially if the truth is perceived as a criticism or threat.

Insecurity and Self-Concept:
A person's self-concept, or how they view themselves, is a crucial factor in how they react to truth. When a truth challenges this self-concept, it can cause discomfort and insecurity. '

Projection:
Insecure individuals may project their own insecurities onto others, misinterpreting comments or actions as criticisms, even when there is no intent to offend.

Values and Beliefs:
Truths that go against a person's values or beliefs are more likely to be perceived as offensive.

In essence, the psychology of offense is often rooted in the desire to maintain a positive self-image and a sense of stability. When the truth challenges this, it can trigger insecurity and lead to defensiveness or anger.

What did you say mate? I can only see what it is when others react.

Janoah wrote: ↑Wed Mar 12, 2025 2:00 am Almost all the topics here mention God.

But to talk about something, you should have an idea about it, unless you are a parrot.

So, what is your definition of God?

This applies to both theists and atheists.
There is a parable, an atheist came to the Rabbi and said to him,

— Rabbi, I don't believe in God.

And the Rabbi answers him,

— I don't believe in the God that you don't believe in either.

There are numerous answers:

1) “God” is simply whatever that is that has put manifest reality in motion.

2) “God” is a series of definitions following that initial perception. I.e. theology. The definitions are generally about how such a God would order a disordered world — our world, the world of man, society, social relations, and “ultimate ends”.

3) “God” is also something said to be encounter-able on the other side of the conventions of No. 2 Whatever it is, and whatever it provides, can be known (or experienced) by unusual activity or beckoning. Call it mysticism or initiation into esoteric knowledge, it usually requires a heroic action that sets in motion what are perhaps adventures in lived life.

4) Ultimately, God is undefinable, so how can one define it? (i.e. existence). It is all less about what that is, and more about the honing and cultivation of one’s own awareness, consciousness and perhaps of personal power in relation to “it”.

At this point, I think, a spiritual path is ultimately about knowledge of an atypical sort and a technology (I might use a word like magic) where one employs knowledge similar to how a ship captain employs an array of skills in navigation on the seas. At that point, it seems to me, a “practitioner” would have to have defined what exactly he is after. If one did not have such a definition, what would be the use of the knowledge to attain what one could not define?

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 9:28 am The concept of God , philosophically pertains to what attribute of the concept is the univerally definitive attribute .

I submit that only candidate for the definite attribute is system

In this regard, I would like to introduce the concept of Logos, in the sense of an objective cosmic law.
An independent existence of a universal logos was clearly suggested by Heraclitus.
In Aristotle, this concept corresponds to, I would say, the immaterial form of the world.
And speaking in modern language, this Logos corresponds to, I would say, the One Law of Nature.
Logos in this understanding corresponds to my concept of God.
(In Christianity, this concept of the immaterial Logos has been perverted into the carnal, to please carnal desires; Christians cannot believe in something that cannot be touched, the Apostle Thomas demonstrated this).

Janoah wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 9:59 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 9:28 am The concept of God , philosophically pertains to what attribute of the concept is the univerally definitive attribute .

I submit that only candidate for the definite attribute is system

In this regard, I would like to introduce the concept of Logos, in the sense of an objective cosmic law.
An independent existence of a universal logos was clearly suggested by Heraclitus.
In Aristotle, this concept corresponds to, I would say, the immaterial form of the world.
And speaking in modern language, this Logos corresponds to, I would say, the One Law of Nature.
Logos in this understanding corresponds to my concept of God.
(In Christianity, this concept of the immaterial Logos has been perverted into the carnal, to please carnal desires; Christians cannot believe in something that cannot be touched, the Apostle Thomas demonstrated this).

Just to make another foe, more grandiosity.

Reason first cannot get you to belief. Reason after helpless belief can be very well, most excellently, done. Most sincerely, decently, morally, ethically, pathically, Humeanly, intelligently, otherwise intellectually done.

I think the personification of the human concept of 'God' is a misunderstanding and mischaracterization of something very different from which life springs.

We humans tend to make the experience of life so personal, directing it to serve us and to revolve around our individual needs, beliefs, and identities. But are we really any more significant than all of the other divine creations pulsating together?

Human ideas and beliefs seem very small and childish in comparison to the powerful creativity and innate connectivity of the observable and immense Universe. It seems undeniably fanciful to think that all of this must somehow be the realm of a greater 'being' like our selves who is at 'the helm', watching over us, caring about us uniquely, with some kind of grand plan for us. Our dependency on caretaking from parental figures is engrained, I guess.

This is all quite innocent, and yet, by reducing that which is so greatly beyond our human scope of knowing, down to the level of a simplified deity that caters to us, it seems (to me) like a barbaric attack on this god -- even, killing this god, so to speak. Imposing our own image on it! Crushing it under our heels. Channeling our own glory instead. Worshipping our idols.

What incredible beauty and perfection flows throughout all -- I wonder -- while human beings imaginatively fashion the Universe around themselves?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 7:08 am I think the personification of the human concept of 'God' is a misunderstanding and mischaracterization of something very different from which life springs.

We humans tend to make the experience of life so personal, directing it to serve us and to revolve around our individual needs, beliefs, and identities. But are we really any more significant than all of the other divine creations pulsating together?

Human ideas and beliefs seem very small and childish in comparison to the powerful creativity and innate connectivity of the observable and immense Universe. It seems undeniably fanciful to think that all of this must somehow be the realm of a greater 'being' like our selves who is at 'the helm', watching over us, caring about us uniquely, with some kind of grand plan for us. Our dependency on caretaking from parental figures is engrained, I guess.

This is all quite innocent, and yet, by reducing that which is so greatly beyond our human scope of knowing, down to the level of a simplified deity that caters to us, it seems (to me) like a barbaric attack on this god -- even, killing this god, so to speak. Imposing our own image on it! Crushing it under our heels. Channeling our own glory instead. Worshipping our idols.

What incredible beauty and perfection flows throughout all -- I wonder -- while human beings imaginatively fashion the Universe around themselves?

I will forego the sword of rationalism, which in its purist form is as guilty as our feeble transpersonal projection on nature that you so poetically describe; thinking that we can understand Her.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 7:08 am I think the personification of the human concept of 'God' is a misunderstanding and mischaracterization of something very different from which life springs.

We humans tend to make the experience of life so personal, directing it to serve us and to revolve around our individual needs, beliefs, and identities.

The 'personification' of 'God', which you adult human beings do, is like "lacewing" presuming, here, that 'others' do 'the same things', which "lacewing", itself, does.

Saying, 'we humans tend to make the experience of life so personal, ....', may well be what "lacwing" does, but it is certainly not what everyone else does.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 7:08 am But are we really any more significant than all of the other divine creations pulsating together?

1. What are you basing the 'divine' word, here, on, exactly?

2. Of course you human beings are no more significant than any other thing in the whole Universe, Itself.

one would only contemplate and ask 'this' if they had previously perceived that you human beings were somehow more significant that all of the 'other things', in Life, Itself. Which just goes to show how Truly distorted their thinking or views are, and how much of 'superiority complex' some really do have, or had.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 7:08 am Human ideas and beliefs seem very small and childish in comparison to the powerful creativity and innate connectivity of the observable and immense Universe.

'This one' keeps going on as though 'the ideas and beliefs' that it has, what it calls the very small and childish ones, are what 'others' have as well.

'This one' keeps asking questions, or making claims, as though everyone else has the same narrowed and/or closed ideas and beliefs that it does.

Instead of questioning why it has such narrowed and closed views and perspectives, it, itself, questions why do humans have the same closed and narrowed views, ideas, and beliefs that it, itself, does.

Which, obviously, has not yet made any 'head way' in learning, 'moving forward', and 'progressing', here.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 7:08 am It seems undeniably fanciful to think that all of this must somehow be the realm of a greater 'being' like our selves who is at 'the helm', watching over us, caring about us uniquely, with some kind of grand plan for us.

Then 'I' suggest 'you' just stop 'thinking' 'that way'.

Simple really.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 7:08 am Our dependency on caretaking from parental figures is engrained, I guess.

So much so that there are 'ones', like 'this one', who so-call 'grow up' never 'accepting responsibility', let alone 'taking responsibility', for their Wrong and bad thinking, and behavior.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 7:08 am This is all quite innocent, and yet, by reducing that which is so greatly beyond our human scope of knowing, down to the level of a simplified deity that caters to us, it seems (to me) like a barbaric attack on this god -- even, killing this god, so to speak.

Once again, as can be clearly seen and proved, here, 'we' have 'another one', here, who believes, absolutely, that some things can not be known and/or are not meant to be known. Which is yet just another 'ingrained learned belief', from a very 'Wrongly taught upbringing'.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 7:08 am Imposing our own image on it! Crushing it under our heels. Channeling our own glory instead. Worshipping our idols.

Exactly like 'you' are doing, here, "lacewing".

you are obviously imposing your own image up on 'It'. 'Trying to' crush 'It' under 'your heels', as you call this. Channeling your own glory instead. And, worshiping 'your own idols', here.

Which if any one is interested in knowing what they are, exactly, then allow 'us' to have a discussion.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 7:08 am What incredible beauty and perfection flows throughout all -- I wonder -- while human beings imaginatively fashion the Universe around themselves?

Which is, exactly, what "lacewing" is doing, here, "itself".

And, 'it', still, after all of 'this time' does not yet see and recognize its own contradictions, and hypocrisy, here.

Being 'critical' of what 'others' are doing, while 'you' are doing the 'exact same thing/s' "lacewing" are not the most sensible nor wisest things that you could be doing, here,,

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 7:30 am

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 7:08 am I think the personification of the human concept of 'God' is a misunderstanding and mischaracterization of something very different from which life springs.

We humans tend to make the experience of life so personal, directing it to serve us and to revolve around our individual needs, beliefs, and identities. But are we really any more significant than all of the other divine creations pulsating together?

Human ideas and beliefs seem very small and childish in comparison to the powerful creativity and innate connectivity of the observable and immense Universe. It seems undeniably fanciful to think that all of this must somehow be the realm of a greater 'being' like our selves who is at 'the helm', watching over us, caring about us uniquely, with some kind of grand plan for us. Our dependency on caretaking from parental figures is engrained, I guess.

This is all quite innocent, and yet, by reducing that which is so greatly beyond our human scope of knowing, down to the level of a simplified deity that caters to us, it seems (to me) like a barbaric attack on this god -- even, killing this god, so to speak. Imposing our own image on it! Crushing it under our heels. Channeling our own glory instead. Worshipping our idols.

What incredible beauty and perfection flows throughout all -- I wonder -- while human beings imaginatively fashion the Universe around themselves?

I will forego the sword of rationalism, which in its purist form is as guilty as our feeble transpersonal projection on nature that you so poetically describe; thinking that we can understand Her.

Although, so-called, 'She' has already been understood.

Well by some of 'us', anyway.

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 1:34 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 12:27 pm

ThinkOfOne wrote: ↑Tue May 06, 2025 10:40 am

I'm well aware that, for the most part, there's a clear distinction between the words attributed to Jesus and the commentary NT writers wrapped around them. I'm also aware that a clear distinction needs to be made between the words attributed to Jesus and the commentary Christians have made about Jesus subsequent to the NT writers.

Martin, on the other hand, does not seem to be able to make that distinction. Not sure where Martin is getting lost. As but one example, Martin posted the following:


The fact is that Jesus was NOT "affirming His divine nature" as many Christians seem to believe; as Martin seems to believe. As I pointed out to Martin earlier:


Do you believe that Jesus was ""affirming His divine nature" OR do you believe that Jesus was employing a metaphor?

I don't know and I don't much care. If an idea is reasonable and /or beautiful then I tend to like it. Trinitarianism makes sense to me in my own way.

I don't believe in any magical interventionist miracles, if that is what you are asking.

It matters that scholars (I am not a scholar) examine religious ideas for their historicity because we need to know what religionists are telling us; some of them know very little history or anthropology and come to daft conclusions.

You are too rude to be a scholar so your ideas are suspect.

What do you think of the following?

In psychology, the truth can be offensive due to insecurity and the need to maintain a positive self-image. When a truth challenges one's self-concept, it can trigger insecurity and a desire to reconcile the new information with one's existing beliefs. This can lead to feeling hurt, defensive, or even angry, especially if the truth is perceived as a criticism or threat.

Insecurity and Self-Concept:
A person's self-concept, or how they view themselves, is a crucial factor in how they react to truth. When a truth challenges this self-concept, it can cause discomfort and insecurity. '

Projection:
Insecure individuals may project their own insecurities onto others, misinterpreting comments or actions as criticisms, even when there is no intent to offend.

Values and Beliefs:
Truths that go against a person's values or beliefs are more likely to be perceived as offensive.

In essence, the psychology of offense is often rooted in the desire to maintain a positive self-image and a sense of stability. When the truth challenges this, it can trigger insecurity and lead to defensiveness or anger.

My self image on these forums is learner.
I am not angry or saddened by your criticism of my posting those quotations about the Westar Institute and Jesus Seminar. I feel impatient towards your criticism. I posted the quotations because this ground has previously been covered by scholars. Your intentions are sincere but you are wasting your energy unless you review or at least are aware of previous evidence.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed May 07, 2025 7:08 am I think the personification of the human concept of 'God' is a misunderstanding and mischaracterization of something very different from which life springs.

We humans tend to make the experience of life so personal, directing it to serve us and to revolve around our individual needs, beliefs, and identities. But are we really any more significant than all of the other divine creations pulsating together?

Human ideas and beliefs seem very small and childish in comparison to the powerful creativity and innate connectivity of the observable and immense Universe. It seems undeniably fanciful to think that all of this must somehow be the realm of a greater 'being' like our selves who is at 'the helm', watching over us, caring about us uniquely, with some kind of grand plan for us. Our dependency on caretaking from parental figures is engrained, I guess.

This is all quite innocent, and yet, by reducing that which is so greatly beyond our human scope of knowing, down to the level of a simplified deity that caters to us, it seems (to me) like a barbaric attack on this god -- even, killing this god, so to speak. Imposing our own image on it! Crushing it under our heels. Channeling our own glory instead. Worshipping our idols.

What incredible beauty and perfection flows throughout all -- I wonder -- while human beings imaginatively fashion the Universe around themselves?

Jesus of Nazareth knew nothing about the natural environment in extreme danger, e.g. bees and other fertilising insects in danger of disappearing, ----need I go on! Not to an awakened conscience like Lacewing's!

Jesus said that God cares about the death of a sparrow therefore He cares much more about each of us. Jesus and his version of God was unconcerned by today's man-made threat to the biosphere. However the principle that we share resources with others who are a little unlike ourselves is covered by the parable of The Good Samaritan.

"If you cut me do I not bleed" (Shylock)