|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
 Posted - 06/01/2011 : 03:41:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.Jesus couldn't possibly have had free will. Especially not in the Christian sense of the term.
|
How do you figure? |
| Edited by - KingDavid8 on 06/01/2011 03:43:34 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 04:38:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
| Originally posted by Dave W.Jesus couldn't possibly have had free will. Especially not in the Christian sense of the term. |
How do you figure? |
The doctrine of free will asserts that we can make a completely free choice as to have faith that Jesus is our Saviour. If Jesus was divine, then he knew the truth and so could not choose faith in himself freely. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 06:15:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The picture does not depict the southern cross.
Ancient Egyptians considered Amun/Ra (the sun) as a source for life (the ankh). If one looks at funerary art for Tutankhamun, one sees the sun (Ra) with rays coming down ending in a hand grasping an ankh.
I have studied quite a bit of Egyptian mythos (it being the particular mythos I call upon as part of my religious ceremonies) and nowhere have I seen the picture you describe as meaning the Southern Cross.
Other things to consider. December 25th isn't where it used to be. With the switch between calendars (Julian to Gregorian)occurring in the 1700's (1752 IIRC) one moves the dates that various events originally were on. While Christianity did borrow some of it's holidays from the old religion (ostensibly to ensure that there were no converts practicing their old religions), the rituals and what they were ascribed to did not mesh.
Jesus did have some parrallels to other older mythos. Some of the claims I have seen do not mesh with any Gods I am familiar with. No birthday was given to Osirus or Horus that I have seen.
The Egyptian mythos did recognize the Equinoxes and Solstaces as well as the rhythm of the Nile.
|
Horus was conflated with Ra
"Horus the Sun, and Ra, the Sun-God of Heliopolis, had so permeated each other that none could say where the one began and the other ended..." - Egyptologist Sir Dr. Gaston Maspero
As seen here
I think that since Horus/Isis/Osiris have astral ties, Horus's birthday was a given because it correlated with the heliacal rise of Sirius assigned December 25th which is what they celebrated as the winter solstice. |
Does this take into account procession? The stars are not in the same positions relative to the rotation of the Earth as they were back then. Do you have a date for this text? Some early Egyptologists made errors which were later corrected after the 1960's. These errors were made during the 1800's and repeated by later individuals. (Sort of like the Sir E. Dennison Ross translation of the Qu'ran based on the George Sales 1801 translation.)
|
I do not understand what that would have to do with what the Egyptians did. Sothis is Isis and Osiris is Orion in Faulkner and Allen's version of the Pyramid Texts and both say this is astral.
|
Everything that the Egyptians did astrologically was linked to the rhythms of the Earth. Procession changes when and where things show up. There is quite a bit of disagreement I can see with conflating Sothis with Isis. Some commentary suggests that Sehkmet and Sothis are conflated. This commentary is unsourced and I am still researching further. As Osiris has the aspect of rebirth, his return is linked to the flooding of the Nile.
I believe the use of the word "astral" here has thrown me. It has a far different meaning to me than how it appears to be used here. One that does not make sense. Did you mean "astrological"?
Isis and Osirus are fertility dieties. The God is typically born at the Winter solstace in the old religions. This seems like a lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. It would make sense for a relatively new religion to select holidays which cooresponded with existing older religions to ensure that dual holidays could not be worshipped.
It makes total sense actually, these religions were not in competition with each other, the Romans actually invited other religions and conflated their gods and religious holidays with their own because they thought it would bring them the blessings of the new god.
Whether Isis and Osiris were fertility deities or not,
It does not logically follow that Jesus, the Christ, is an automatic extension of such a mythos.
No one that it was automatically an extension of such mythos and so far, no one has proven that Jesus is not a myth.
Lost Light: An Interpretation of Ancient Scriptures By Alvin Boyd Kuhn Page 495
"Horus, the child is crowned in the seat of Osiris at the end of three days. In the lunar typing, Osiris dies at the winter solstice to be reborn again as Horus on the third day in the moon."
Alvin Boyd Kuhn scholar of comparative religion, mythology, linguistics and language.
The winter solstice on the Julian calendar was January 6th which from my understanding correlates with December 25th on the Gregorian Calendar (I do not have a positive understanding of this yet) Eastern Orthodox churches still celebrates Jesus birthday on Epiphany on January 6th.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/holidays/christmas.htm
|
Switch to Gregorian from Julian made dates in the year later, not earlier.
It is also explained here:
*Liturgy for Living By Charles P. Price, Louis Weil Page 164
Jesus birthday on both January 6th and December 25th
This conflation happened in the Old Testament too as seen here
although on that link, they call it assimilation. I am not surprised that Jesus would be an assimilation/conflation.
I find it rather interesting that the Old Testament god Yahweh was called all these lovely names like "El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith" then come to find out that they were actually the names of the Canaanite deities. 
|
It also has some reference to the Jewish ceremonial magic concept of the tree of life (Kabballah).
|
|
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 06:16:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by Dude
You put your reponse in the middle of the quote. Can't tell who is saying what there now.
|
I cannot figure out how to answer using the quotes that she had or how to properly delete the extra stuff. Sorry. 
|
She?
I'm a dude. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 07:07:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The picture does not depict the southern cross.
Ancient Egyptians considered Amun/Ra (the sun) as a source for life (the ankh). If one looks at funerary art for Tutankhamun, one sees the sun (Ra) with rays coming down ending in a hand grasping an ankh.
I have studied quite a bit of Egyptian mythos (it being the particular mythos I call upon as part of my religious ceremonies) and nowhere have I seen the picture you describe as meaning the Southern Cross.
Other things to consider. December 25th isn't where it used to be. With the switch between calendars (Julian to Gregorian)occurring in the 1700's (1752 IIRC) one moves the dates that various events originally were on. While Christianity did borrow some of it's holidays from the old religion (ostensibly to ensure that there were no converts practicing their old religions), the rituals and what they were ascribed to did not mesh.
Jesus did have some parrallels to other older mythos. Some of the claims I have seen do not mesh with any Gods I am familiar with. No birthday was given to Osirus or Horus that I have seen.
The Egyptian mythos did recognize the Equinoxes and Solstaces as well as the rhythm of the Nile.
|
Horus was conflated with Ra
"Horus the Sun, and Ra, the Sun-God of Heliopolis, had so permeated each other that none could say where the one began and the other ended..." - Egyptologist Sir Dr. Gaston Maspero
As seen here
I think that since Horus/Isis/Osiris have astral ties, Horus's birthday was a given because it correlated with the heliacal rise of Sirius assigned December 25th which is what they celebrated as the winter solstice. |
Does this take into account procession? The stars are not in the same positions relative to the rotation of the Earth as they were back then. Do you have a date for this text? Some early Egyptologists made errors which were later corrected after the 1960's. These errors were made during the 1800's and repeated by later individuals. (Sort of like the Sir E. Dennison Ross translation of the Qu'ran based on the George Sales 1801 translation.)
|
I do not understand what that would have to do with what the Egyptians did. Sothis is Isis and Osiris is Orion in Faulkner and Allen's version of the Pyramid Texts and both say this is astral.
|
Everything that the Egyptians did astrologically was linked to the rhythms of the Earth. Procession changes when and where things show up. There is quite a bit of disagreement I can see with conflating Sothis with Isis. Some commentary suggests that Sehkmet and Sothis are conflated. This commentary is unsourced and I am still researching further. As Osiris has the aspect of rebirth, his return is linked to the flooding of the Nile.
I believe the use of the word "astral" here has thrown me. It has a far different meaning to me than how it appears to be used here. One that does not make sense. Did you mean "astrological"?
Isis and Osirus are fertility dieties. The God is typically born at the Winter solstace in the old religions. This seems like a lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. It would make sense for a relatively new religion to select holidays which cooresponded with existing older religions to ensure that dual holidays could not be worshipped.
It makes total sense actually, these religions were not in competition with each other, the Romans actually invited other religions and conflated their gods and religious holidays with their own because they thought it would bring them the blessings of the new god.
Whether Isis and Osiris were fertility deities or not,
It does not logically follow that Jesus, the Christ, is an automatic extension of such a mythos.
No one that it was automatically an extension of such mythos and so far, no one has proven that Jesus is not a myth.
Lost Light: An Interpretation of Ancient Scriptures By Alvin Boyd Kuhn Page 495
"Horus, the child is crowned in the seat of Osiris at the end of three days. In the lunar typing, Osiris dies at the winter solstice to be reborn again as Horus on the third day in the moon."
Alvin Boyd Kuhn scholar of comparative religion, mythology, linguistics and language.
The winter solstice on the Julian calendar was January 6th which from my understanding correlates with December 25th on the Gregorian Calendar (I do not have a positive understanding of this yet) Eastern Orthodox churches still celebrates Jesus birthday on Epiphany on January 6th.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/holidays/christmas.htm
|
Switch to Gregorian from Julian made dates in the year later, not earlier.
It is also explained here:
*Liturgy for Living By Charles P. Price, Louis Weil Page 164
Jesus birthday on both January 6th and December 25th
This conflation happened in the Old Testament too as seen here
although on that link, they call it assimilation. I am not surprised that Jesus would be an assimilation/conflation.
I find it rather interesting that the Old Testament god Yahweh was called all these lovely names like "El Shaddai, El Elyon, and El Berith" then come to find out that they were actually the names of the Canaanite deities.
|
It also has some reference to the Jewish ceremonial magic concept of the tree of life (Kabballah).
|
|
|
Can you back up "There is quite a bit of disagreement I can see with conflating Sothis with Isis." with some quotes by Egyptologists? I have searched and searched and every Pyramid Text that I can find has Isis as Sothis. For instance you can see this in Utterance 366 in Faulkner's Pyramid Texts, Line 198 in Allens Pyramid Text. In Lamentations of Isis and Nephtys, Isis calls herself Sothis.
As seen here Page 363
Do you think that this website is wrong?
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/sothis.htm
When I say astral, I mean this:
Of, connected with, or resembling the stars |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
| Edited by - changingmyself on 06/01/2011 07:24:43 |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 07:09:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by Dude
You put your reponse in the middle of the quote. Can't tell who is saying what there now.
|
I cannot figure out how to answer using the quotes that he had or how to properly delete the extra stuff. Sorry.
|
She?
I'm a dude.
|
Sorry, I will correct that. lol |
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 08:35:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
| Originally posted by Dave W.Jesus couldn't possibly have had free will. Especially not in the Christian sense of the term. |
How do you figure? |
The doctrine of free will asserts that we can make a completely free choice as to have faith that Jesus is our Saviour. If Jesus was divine, then he knew the truth and so could not choose faith in himself freely.
|
But that's not to say that He had no free will at all. He could still choose what to do, what to say, where to go, etc. Free will is certainly about much more than whether to accept that Jesus is who Christians claim He is. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 13:17:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
But that's not to say that He had no free will at all. He could still choose what to do, what to say, where to go, etc. Free will is certainly about much more than whether to accept that Jesus is who Christians claim He is.
|
So you reject the common excuse that god doesn't reveal himself unambiguously because doing so would impinge on our free will? Then why do you believe god remains so hidden and elusive?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 16:01:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
But that's not to say that He had no free will at all. He could still choose what to do, what to say, where to go, etc. Free will is certainly about much more than whether to accept that Jesus is who Christians claim He is. |
No, the Christian Doctrine of Free Will is only about salvation, and whether it can be freely chosen. All other issues in life are secondary, at best. That doesn't mean that without free will, people are intention-less puppets. Calvanists aren't nihilists, for example.
Besides, god's omniscience denies free will in every other sense of the term. If god knows everything you're going to do before you do it, then you cannot choose to do otherwise. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 19:27:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, the Christian Doctrine of Free Will is only about salvation, and whether it can be freely chosen. |
But I'm talking about free will as a whole, not just as it relates to a single issue. Did Jesus have free will? Yes, He did.
Besides, god's omniscience denies free will in every other sense of the term. If god knows everything you're going to do before you do it, then you cannot choose to do otherwise.
|
Sure you can. In which case, God would fore-know you would choose to do otherwise. What God fore-knows is dependent on what we will choose, not the other way around. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2011 : 19:28:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
So you reject the common excuse that god doesn't reveal himself unambiguously because doing so would impinge on our free will? |
No, I do not. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2011 : 06:23:38 [Permalink]
|
kingdavid8 said:
| Sure you can. In which case, God would fore-know you would choose to do otherwise. What God fore-knows is dependent on what we will choose, not the other way around. |
So you position is that humans create god? Cause and effect only flow one way you know.
If there is an omnopotent deity and that entity created you, in the moment of your creation they know everything you will ever do. If they don't, then they are not omnipotent. So the act of your creation, and everything you will ever do, can only be an expression of divine will.
Omnipotence, if it exists, is mutually exclusive to free will. Both can not exist.
Even if we go by your reverse cause/effect, if there is an omnipotent deity, and they know what you will choose to do, then your existence is still an act of divine will. That deity chose to let Hitler BBQ 6million people. Given that omnipotence could simply flip a switch in Hitler's brain, recreate him so he loves jews, and hide the entire process from everyone (even Hitler) so that at least the illusion of free will is maintained, it means that an omnipotent deity decided it was fine with him if 6million people were systematically exterminated, tortured, experimented on, and so on. If omnipotence exists, it is responsible, by premeditation, for all the things in the world we consider bad/evil. And you have no free will.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2011 : 08:52:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
kingdavid8 said:
| Sure you can. In which case, God would fore-know you would choose to do otherwise. What God fore-knows is dependent on what we will choose, not the other way around. |
So you position is that humans create god? Cause and effect only flow one way you know. |
No, I don't position that humans create God. What I'm saying is that God's foreknowledge is dependent on what we will choose, not that what we will choose is dependent on God's foreknowledge.
| If there is an omnopotent deity and that entity created you, in the moment of your creation they know everything you will ever do. |
Sure. But that doesn't mean that the omnipotent deity pre-made all of my decisions for me.
| So the act of your creation, and everything you will ever do, can only be an expression of divine will. |
I disagree. I can't see why an omnipotent deity would be unable to create creatures with free will.
| Omnipotence, if it exists, is mutually exclusive to free will. Both can not exist. |
Sure they can, as long as we acknowledge that "knowing" doesn't equal "controlling".
| Even if we go by your reverse cause/effect, if there is an omnipotent deity, and they know what you will choose to do, then your existence is still an act of divine will. That deity chose to let Hitler BBQ 6million people. Given that omnipotence could simply flip a switch in Hitler's brain, recreate him so he loves jews, and hide the entire process from everyone (even Hitler) so that at least the illusion of free will is maintained, it means that an omnipotent deity decided it was fine with him if 6million people were systematically exterminated, tortured, experimented on, and so on. |
By allowing us free will, we become responsible for our own actions and their consequences. I'd really rather not get into a side-discussion on why God didn't "fix" Hitler and this point, since we're just discussing whether free will existed, and I'd rather not get off track. I'll gladly discuss this issue at a later time, though.
| If omnipotence exists, it is responsible, by premeditation, for all the things in the world we consider bad/evil. |
If we are given a right, we are responsible for what we do with that right. The only way God could get rid of all evil would be to destroy us all, or not allow us to have free will, basically making us mindless pre-programmed robots. I'd rather mankind has the ability to choose right and wrong for themselves, even if that means that people choose wrong (even horribly wrong) now and then.
| And you have no free will. |
Sure we do. At least, I have yet to see a convincing argument about how God's foreknowledge of our decisions means that we don't make our own decisions. Knowing doesn't equal controlling.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2011 : 12:28:13 [Permalink]
|
kingdavid8 said:
| I disagree. I can't see why an omnipotent deity would be unable to create creatures with free will. |
If you have omnipotence, and you then create something, you know everything that will ever happen to that thing. If it is a person, you know everything that person will ever do at the moment you create them. If you were created by an omnipotent deity then your every act is nothing more than the intent of your omnipotent creator, you are nothing but an instrument of divine will. You can't posses free will because your entire set of actions was predetermined and approved by your omnipotent creator. They are not your actions. Free will and omnipotence are mutually exclusive propositions.
| But that doesn't mean that the omnipotent deity pre-made all of my decisions for me. |
That is exactly what it means. Being omnipotent your creator knows everything you are going to do, that means you were created to do exactly those things, that means the decision to do them was not yours. To get you free will your creator would have to be able to create you and make you capable of doing things it did not know you would do. It would have to sacrifice it's own omnipotence, or never have had it, to accomplish that.
You, obviously, have to deny the logic in order to maintain your irrational belief in an omnipotent deity.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/02/2011 : 13:27:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
If you have omnipotence, and you then create something, you know everything that will ever happen to that thing. If it is a person, you know everything that person will ever do at the moment you create them. |
True, but that doesn't mean that you control it. You can create a being with free will, that makes its own choices, and you would still know what those choices would end up being.
| If you were created by an omnipotent deity then your every act is nothing more than the intent of your omnipotent creator, you are nothing but an instrument of divine will. |
Not if He gave you free will.
| You can't posses free will because your entire set of actions was predetermined and approved by your omnipotent creator. |
Again, not if he gave you free will. He would know what you're going to do, yes, but knowing doesn't equal controlling. You could still make your own choices, and He would simply know what those choices will end up being. I don't see how this means that your actions are predetermined or that God made those choices for you. An omnipotent being would have no problem creating creatures will free will, and His being omniscient wouldn't change that. It would just mean that he knows what those free-willed creatures will end up doing.
| To get you free will your creator would have to be able to create you and make you capable of doing things it did not know you would do. |
Why would it not have to know? Knowing does not equal controlling. What God knows is dependent on what I will choose. But what I choose is not dependent on what God knows. If I choose "A", God will know I will choose "A". If I choose "B", God will know I will choose "B". But I didn't choose "A" or "B" because God knew I would. God knew I would because He can foresee which I will choose. But the choice is still mine to make.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
