What a day and what a night. By day, I hosted the Winter Solstice party where I met Dartemis (sorry I didn’t get more time with you) and got commitment from 15 people to spend 20 hours each on a political campaign of their choice next year. That’s 300 hours of time, by Atheists! The speakers were great, and the food was great.It was announced that we are seeking a paid lobbyist in Washington DC. Email Ellen if you want more info at ej@atheists.org.By night, I went to a kick-a$$ holiday party with some kick-a$$ friends. Such a tremendous release to be able to party with friends. Special nod goes to Matt for a great original Christmas song! Got home at 2am. Kill me.
karen:
If you?ll recall, the ?elephant? to which I was referring was the historic event responsible for the nomenclature of our chronology?not the logical possibility of an omnipotent being.
No, that was a logical conclusion you drew by operating on the assumption that the properties of God and Jesus were commutative (i.e. each must possess the same attributes as the other). It seems you (as well as HeatheNZ) may also be assuming that God could only take one form or the other, and not both simultaneously. Again, it?s not illogical to say that that is not impossible for a being who is both omnipotent and omnipresent.
Confining your conclusion to your personal experiences (or lack thereof) is not using logic objectively. If that were all it took to prove that a concept cannot exist, then it would be perfectly reasonable for me to say that Paris, France cannot possibly exist simply because I have never seen it first hand.
Jcc,
My contribution was to point to a logical axiom that states that something cannot be both A and not A at the same time.
As I recall you were positing that Jesus was both fully human and devinely omnipotent at the same time. Correct me if i am wrong.
Consider what it means to be fully human. I think it means that being devinely omnipotent makes one no longer fully human (it at least makes them super-human.
Therefore according to my wee brain that makes this entity NOT fully human, while at the same time you are positing that it is fully human.
Therefore it is directly defying a basic logical axion that states that something cannot be both A and not A at the same time.
jcc
I also said I hadn’t seen heard or read about ” any evidence from anyone else to that effect.” So tho, I have not been to Paris either, I know people who have been, have seen pictures, heard tales, read about it in factual literature, etc. There is evidence I can accept for it existing. There is no factual evidence for an omnipotent being. If I am wrong, present such evidence to me.
I understand that as the story goes, God was still god, even as christ was on earth. I never questioned, until now, whether or not he still had all the same powers. You are correct, I did assume that Christ, being of god, would have the same powers. That was what I thought the point was of having him perform miracles; to show that he had godly powers and was not simply human. Otherwise, wouldn’t he be just another traveler, spreading words of good will towards one’s neighbor? But he asked more than that, didn’t he? Loving your neighbor wasn’t enough; you had to believe in him and his father also. How do you get people to buy into your story over the one being sold by the next fellow? You embellish it with magic and make the people think you and your father-god have power over them; power to reward and to punish.
But I digress.
You are correct again. I did forget that’s what we had been discussing.
Again, it was just a marker that was used in its day, around an event that may or may not have actually happened. Whether it actually happened is of no consequence now, because the standard has been set and accepted by and large. Too much is centered around the present calendar to worry about changing it or how it got the way it is. I don’t see that it validates Christianity at all.
HeatheNZ:
I disagree. Being ?super-human? means being fully human, first and foremost, but with additional attributes. It?s like the difference between a Mustang and a Mustang GT?they both possess the same chassis and body style, but the GT has a bigger engine, and a higher performance suspension?one is a superset of the other?but both are intrinsically ?Mustang.?
Again, I disagree with your basis for disqualification.