Re: The practice of designating particular humans as being divine is utmost reprehensible
Posted: Fri Apr 11, 2025 3:50 pm
Well, no, the Japanese emperor is also God who became man. What stops an omnipotent God from doing that, huh?
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Well, no, the Japanese emperor is also God who became man. What stops an omnipotent God from doing that, huh?
So, if I understand it right, God becomes man when it suits you, but otherwise, he doesn't do that?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 3:52 pmThe Japanese are simply wrong. And so are you. It's that easy.
What about Herakles, Perseus, Helen and Achilles? Are demi-gods also "reprehensible"?godelian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 4:32 pmSo, if I understand it right, God becomes man when it suits you, but otherwise, he doesn't do that?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 3:52 pmThe Japanese are simply wrong. And so are you. It's that easy.
You don't believe in any of them. Neither do I. And we both know that these sorts of alleged beings aren't really "God," because they aren't the Supreme Being, even if any of them had existed, which they didn't...at most, they're a kind of contingent "super-human," and not really God at all. They're a totally different concept.Alexiev wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 4:51 pmWhat about Herakles, Perseus, Helen and Achilles? Are demi-gods also "reprehensible"?godelian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 4:32 pmSo, if I understand it right, God becomes man when it suits you, but otherwise, he doesn't do that?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 3:52 pm
The Japanese are simply wrong. And so are you. It's that easy.
Hmmm. The Greek Gods aren't gods. The Norse Gods aren't gods. IC has reinvented the English language!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:01 pmYou don't believe in any of them. Neither do I. And we both know that these sorts of alleged beings aren't really "God," because they aren't the Supreme Being, even if any of them had existed, which they didn't...at most, they're a kind of contingent "super-human," and not really God at all. They're a totally different concept.
As to whether or not they're "reprehensible," which is your word, I think there's no harm in fiction. But if somebody wants to believe in them and worship them, that's quite a different matter, of course. Then, the First Commandment applies.
But again: could Allah (or God) become a man? You haven't answered that.
No, just using it in a standard way. There's a reason that the Greek and Norse "gods" get a small "g," and the Supreme Being gets a big "G": that is, that everybody who deals with these concepts realizes that they're not exactly the same concept...and hence, Standard English deals with it this way.Alexiev wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 6:35 pmHmmm. The Greek Gods aren't gods. The Norse Gods aren't gods. IC has reinvented the English language!Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 5:01 pmYou don't believe in any of them. Neither do I. And we both know that these sorts of alleged beings aren't really "God," because they aren't the Supreme Being, even if any of them had existed, which they didn't...at most, they're a kind of contingent "super-human," and not really God at all. They're a totally different concept.
As to whether or not they're "reprehensible," which is your word, I think there's no harm in fiction. But if somebody wants to believe in them and worship them, that's quite a different matter, of course. Then, the First Commandment applies.
But again: could Allah (or God) become a man? You haven't answered that.
No, it's much more simple than that: God becomes what He wishes to, when He wishes to, if He wishes to. He's God. He does as He wills, not as I might want or you might expect.godelian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 4:32 pmSo, if I understand it right, God becomes man when it suits you, but otherwise, he doesn't do that?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 3:52 pmThe Japanese are simply wrong. And so are you. It's that easy.
Then you have a very serious logical problem. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8-55DZ7f080.
The false belief that Christ died at the cross is based on a forgery of the Bible that we can trace back to Origin of Alexandria. Of course, Christ came back three days after the facts, as he had promised, because he wasn't dead to begin with. You would have to read a more original version of the Gospels, such as the Codex Koridethi, to understand what really happened on that Passover night. The modern version of the Bible is so full of fabrications that it is not suitable for any serious purpose. It is a complete joke.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 8:43 pmThen you have a very serious logical problem. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8-55DZ7f080.
The Bible, from which Mo tried to get his own credentials, says that Christ did die for our sins. Mo, who was illiterate anyway (as all imams will happily and proudly admit) claimed the Bible was true, and that Allah's word could never be corrupted; but clearly, Mo could never have read the Scriptures, and relied on what he heard from the Nestorians and his own failed memory, so he got the Scriptures wrong, corrupted them himself, and made mistakes...and this wasn't his only mistake. For example, he thought Genesis taught that Ishmael was Abraham's son-of-the-Promise. Any Jew or Christian knows that's wrong, too.
So Mo was wrong because Mo says his authority comes form the Torah, but Mo got Torah wrong. But Mo also said Torah was the word of Allah, and the word of Allah can never be corrupted, Mo said. So Mo was wrong one way or the other: either he was wrong that Torah cannot be corrupted, which would excuse the difference between Torah and NT and Koran, but not explain how it could be corrupted, or he was wrong about Isaac and Christ, and it was never corrupted (just as the manuscript records indicate) and thus was himself a corrupter of Torah and the NT...
Which is it?
Actually, it's not. We can actually trace that belief back to the early disciples themselves, and there's no other reason for them to have promulgated it but that they believed it to be true, because many of them died for it, and died in rather unpleasant ways. That much, we can say for sure.godelian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:03 pmThe false belief that Christ died at the cross is based on a forgery of the Bible that we can trace back to Origin of Alexandria.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 8:43 pmThen you have a very serious logical problem. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8-55DZ7f080.
The Bible, from which Mo tried to get his own credentials, says that Christ did die for our sins. Mo, who was illiterate anyway (as all imams will happily and proudly admit) claimed the Bible was true, and that Allah's word could never be corrupted; but clearly, Mo could never have read the Scriptures, and relied on what he heard from the Nestorians and his own failed memory, so he got the Scriptures wrong, corrupted them himself, and made mistakes...and this wasn't his only mistake. For example, he thought Genesis taught that Ishmael was Abraham's son-of-the-Promise. Any Jew or Christian knows that's wrong, too.
So Mo was wrong because Mo says his authority comes form the Torah, but Mo got Torah wrong. But Mo also said Torah was the word of Allah, and the word of Allah can never be corrupted, Mo said. So Mo was wrong one way or the other: either he was wrong that Torah cannot be corrupted, which would excuse the difference between Torah and NT and Koran, but not explain how it could be corrupted, or he was wrong about Isaac and Christ, and it was never corrupted (just as the manuscript records indicate) and thus was himself a corrupter of Torah and the NT...
Which is it?
You want to turn this into a debate between Christianity and Islam.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Apr 12, 2025 2:42 amActually, it's not. We can actually trace that belief back to the early disciples themselves, and there's no other reason for them to have promulgated it but that they believed it to be true, because many of them died for it, and died in rather unpleasant ways. That much, we can say for sure.godelian wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 11:03 pmThe false belief that Christ died at the cross is based on a forgery of the Bible that we can trace back to Origin of Alexandria.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Apr 11, 2025 8:43 pm
Then you have a very serious logical problem. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8-55DZ7f080.
The Bible, from which Mo tried to get his own credentials, says that Christ did die for our sins. Mo, who was illiterate anyway (as all imams will happily and proudly admit) claimed the Bible was true, and that Allah's word could never be corrupted; but clearly, Mo could never have read the Scriptures, and relied on what he heard from the Nestorians and his own failed memory, so he got the Scriptures wrong, corrupted them himself, and made mistakes...and this wasn't his only mistake. For example, he thought Genesis taught that Ishmael was Abraham's son-of-the-Promise. Any Jew or Christian knows that's wrong, too.
So Mo was wrong because Mo says his authority comes form the Torah, but Mo got Torah wrong. But Mo also said Torah was the word of Allah, and the word of Allah can never be corrupted, Mo said. So Mo was wrong one way or the other: either he was wrong that Torah cannot be corrupted, which would excuse the difference between Torah and NT and Koran, but not explain how it could be corrupted, or he was wrong about Isaac and Christ, and it was never corrupted (just as the manuscript records indicate) and thus was himself a corrupter of Torah and the NT...
Which is it?
But what do you do with the two declaration of Mo that it is impossible for the word of God to become corrupted, because God would never permit it; but yet, subsequent Muslim apologists explaining Mo's variance from the Bible by way of corruption? How do you keep those two claims intact?