JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

It may be tired to you, but it is one for which you have no credible answer.

---

This exact question has been posed by you and answered on this forum multiple times.

---

You'd think you'd get it right.

---

We're still waiting on you to show it was wrong.

---

Pay closer attention.

bearhouse said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

bearhouse said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

quash said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If everything we think, do, or say is the result of the movement of molecules in our brain, and the movement of molecules is determined only by the physical laws of the universe, then how do we have choice?

---

Consciousness.

Any die-hard determinist will never accept the arguments for free will. At least most religionists do. I have no idea if the percentage of determinists is higher or lower among non-believers.

---

Is consciousness governed by the physical laws of the universe?

If it is not, and consciousness can cause the movement of molecules in the brain, then it follows that the movement of molecules in this universe is not solely determined by the physical laws of the universe. Agree? Waco47, you agree?

---

Physical laws apply.

---

If physical laws determine consciousness, then you're back to not having choice.

So you believe we have no choice or free will?

---

Physical laws allow for making choices from learned frame of reference.

---

How do you make this "choice" from learned frame of reference? At what point are you controlling the movement of molecules in your brain, where the result is going to be according to your "will", rather than the determined result of physics?

---

You have too simplistic of a view of the brain. Your identity and who you are is all part of your brain. Your brain is you. That's why people who have brain damage can lose identity, or personality, or the ability to process and analyze. That's why who you are today is different from who you were at six months old. As your brain develops, you evolve. That's why you don't know anything from infancy, or at conception, because your brain was not sufficiently developed. You didn't exist in any form before conception. Over time you/your brain evolved. When your brain ceases to function completely, you won't remember, or know anything, and you will not longer exist. The same state you were in before conception. Your brain is a processor. The will of someone with autism or some other brain impairment is clearly impacted by the lack of development of their brain. Will is a function of your brain, and your brain operates according to physical laws.

---

You didn't even come close to answering the question. Read my question and try again.

---

Actually, I did. Your brain is you, and controls all of your bodily functions. Your brain controls movement in accord with physical laws. What you're saying is your body is in a virtual world controlled by the whims some outside agent. Where does your soul reside, and where did it come from?

---

Your brain does not control all bodily functions. Good gravy, your view is too simplistic.

---

I think the guillotine ends all body functions, and simplistically ends the argument.

---

Technically it doesn't. A brain dead body can still be alive. For instance, we can artificially keep a body alive through mechanical means even if there is brain death. Furthermore, the body begins to under go changes even when not attached to the brain. However, this doesn't solve the riddle...is consciousness produced by the brain or is it outside of the brain? If it is produced by the brain, yes, the guillotine ends the argument as far as consciousness is determined. If the brain is a receiver of consciousness, it doesn't end the argument.

A radio doesn't produce the music. But a damaged radio won't receive the same signal. I understand this sounds unscientific to you. But the study of consciousness is not as clear cut as you would like it to be.

Your view might be right. But to believe it is "certain" is an error.

---

Quote:

---

Technically it doesn't. A brain dead body can still be alive. For instance, we can artificially keep a body alive through mechanical means even if there is brain death. Furthermore, the body begins to under go changes even when not attached to the brain. However, this doesn't solve the riddle...is consciousness produced by the brain or is it outside of the brain? If it is produced by the brain, yes, the guillotine ends the argument as far as consciousness is determined. If the brain is a receiver of consciousness, it doesn't end the argument.

---

A brain dead body will die unless there is outside manipulation to keep organs/ body alive. That doesn't have any bearing on consciousness. A body kept alive artificially with a dead brain has no consciousness. When the parts of the brain are damaged/destroyed that produce consciousness, there is NO consciousness. It's clear that consciousness is a function of the brain, without which there is no consciousness. No consciousness before brain development after conception, and no consciousness after death.

Quote:

---

A radio doesn't produce the music. But a damaged radio won't receive the same signal. I understand this sounds unscientific to you. But the study of consciousness is not as clear cut as you would like it to be.

---

Ok, we know how radios work. Produce your evidence the brain is a receiver from any source outside of what is taken in through interpretation of bodily senses. The weight of evidence from neuroscience and psychology doesn't support your hypothesis.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator.".

Actually, what they have done is claim that if a series of assumptions are correct, none of them proven, then within the parameters of their limited description a universe creator outside those parameters is not defined as required ... but something else is.

---

See my previous post above to Tarp.

---

Very efficient, using the same excuse twice.

A good example of GIGO as well.

---

GIGO is a very good example of religious lore and mysticism. Thank you.

---

Considering the sum effect of religion, from charities to free education to moral compass, a reasonable person would count Faith and Religion as good things.

---

You mean like some of the free education about which the Pope is on a Canadian apology tour?

---

The Pope offended Canada?

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

That's why he left out all loving as a characteristic of his god, because that characteristic is irreconcilable with the character revealed in the Bible and life. The fact is, the evidence of reality tells us there is no god, and the laws of physics explain that no god is necessary to account for anything. Faith is not evidence of anything other than man's capacity for self deception.

---

Really?

This is a very tired atheistic trope. Quite frankly, this is the type of statement made by lazy, young atheists that have done no research into their beliefs other than Facebook memes and reddit forums.

I would have assumed that you would be past posting these worn clichs.

---

It may be tired to you, but it is one for which you have no credible answer.

---

This exact question has been posed by you and answered on this forum multiple times.

---

You'd think you'd get it right.

---

We're still waiting on you to show it was wrong.

---

Pay closer attention.

---

Make better arguments.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator.".

Actually, what they have done is claim that if a series of assumptions are correct, none of them proven, then within the parameters of their limited description a universe creator outside those parameters is not defined as required ... but something else is.

---

See my previous post above to Tarp.

---

Very efficient, using the same excuse twice.

A good example of GIGO as well.

---

GIGO is a very good example of religious lore and mysticism. Thank you.

---

Considering the sum effect of religion, from charities to free education to moral compass, a reasonable person would count Faith and Religion as good things.

---

You mean like some of the free education about which the Pope is on a Canadian apology tour?

---

The Pope offended Canada?

---

Yeah. Indigenous Canadians don't appreciate his cult killing hundreds of their children. It's a good example of what can happen when church and state hook up together.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator.".

Actually, what they have done is claim that if a series of assumptions are correct, none of them proven, then within the parameters of their limited description a universe creator outside those parameters is not defined as required ... but something else is.

---

See my previous post above to Tarp.

---

Very efficient, using the same excuse twice.

A good example of GIGO as well.

---

GIGO is a very good example of religious lore and mysticism. Thank you.

---

Considering the sum effect of religion, from charities to free education to moral compass, a reasonable person would count Faith and Religion as good things.

---

Explain Manifest Destiny to the natives that were wiped out. The Japanese followed their Emporer because he was devine. Gunbarrel conversions are pretty common. Religion hss been corrupted and used to justify atrocities many times.

---

You're mixing faith and religion with politics and human nature again.

---

That's when you get January 6th.

TexasScientist said:

---

Yeah. Indigenous Canadians don't appreciate his cult killing hundreds of their children. It's a good example of what can happen when church and state hook up together.

---

I guess its much like science killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Yeah. Indigenous Canadians don't appreciate his cult killing hundreds of their children. It's a good example of what can happen when church and state hook up together.

---

I guess its much like science killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

---

The low tech.....very cheap....fire bomb........killed far more Japanese than the nukes.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Yeah. Indigenous Canadians don't appreciate his cult killing hundreds of their children. It's a good example of what can happen when church and state hook up together.

---

I guess its much like science killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

---

Not really. The U.S. used science to end what would have cost more lives if it continued. The Church is responsible for the Canadian atrocity.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator.".

Actually, what they have done is claim that if a series of assumptions are correct, none of them proven, then within the parameters of their limited description a universe creator outside those parameters is not defined as required ... but something else is.

---

See my previous post above to Tarp.

---

Very efficient, using the same excuse twice.

A good example of GIGO as well.

---

GIGO is a very good example of religious lore and mysticism. Thank you.

---

Considering the sum effect of religion, from charities to free education to moral compass, a reasonable person would count Faith and Religion as good things.

---

Explain Manifest Destiny to the natives that were wiped out. The Japanese followed their Emporer because he was devine. Gunbarrel conversions are pretty common. Religion hss been corrupted and used to justify atrocities many times.

---

You're mixing faith and religion with politics and human nature again.

---

That's when you get January 6th.

---

Only if your religion is hating Trump

---

I didn't see any Trump haters storming the Capitol.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator.".

Actually, what they have done is claim that if a series of assumptions are correct, none of them proven, then within the parameters of their limited description a universe creator outside those parameters is not defined as required ... but something else is.

---

See my previous post above to Tarp.

---

Very efficient, using the same excuse twice.

A good example of GIGO as well.

---

GIGO is a very good example of religious lore and mysticism. Thank you.

---

Considering the sum effect of religion, from charities to free education to moral compass, a reasonable person would count Faith and Religion as good things.

---

Explain Manifest Destiny to the natives that were wiped out. The Japanese followed their Emporer because he was devine. Gunbarrel conversions are pretty common. Religion hss been corrupted and used to justify atrocities many times.

---

You're mixing faith and religion with politics and human nature again.

---

That's when you get January 6th.

---

Only if your religion is hating Trump

---

I didn't see any Trump haters storming the Capitol.

---

They did their storming as part of the Red Queen's Committee.

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking using quantum theory have demonstrated a spontaneously formed universe is plausible, without the need for a creator.".

Actually, what they have done is claim that if a series of assumptions are correct, none of them proven, then within the parameters of their limited description a universe creator outside those parameters is not defined as required ... but something else is.

---

See my previous post above to Tarp.

---

Very efficient, using the same excuse twice.

A good example of GIGO as well.

---

GIGO is a very good example of religious lore and mysticism. Thank you.

---

Considering the sum effect of religion, from charities to free education to moral compass, a reasonable person would count Faith and Religion as good things.

---

Explain Manifest Destiny to the natives that were wiped out. The Japanese followed their Emporer because he was devine. Gunbarrel conversions are pretty common. Religion hss been corrupted and used to justify atrocities many times.

---

You're mixing faith and religion with politics and human nature again.

---

That's when you get January 6th.

---

Only if your religion is hating Trump

---

I didn't see any Trump haters storming the Capitol.

---

Check the cameras from 2016 and 2020.

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

Thank you for your perspective

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

I agree with you - I never said that was the case? I personally know many people (including myself and my wife) who have deconstructed from fundamental Christianity and still view Christ as a deity.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

I agree with you - I never said that was the case? I personally know many people (including myself and my wife) who have deconstructed from fundamental Christianity and still view Christ as a deity.

---

You gave credence to the idea Christ was not Christ at all.

"Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching."

Why would you do that?

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Not really. The U.S. used science to end what would have cost more lives if it continued.

---

So it's OK to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians to save Americans lives?

TexasScientist said:

---

The Church is responsible for the Canadian atrocity.

---

No the Church is not responsible. People in the church are culpable of these crimes. The Church never condones violence to the innocent.

---

This doesn't sound like someone waging war

" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, "Permit even this." And He touched his ear and healed him."
Luke 22:50-51 - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Luke%2022:50-51&version=NKJV

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

I agree with you - I never said that was the case? I personally know many people (including myself and my wife) who have deconstructed from fundamental Christianity and still view Christ as a deity.

---

You gave credence to the idea Christ was not Christ at all.

"Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching."

Why would you do that?

---

The purpose of the original post was to open the door for discussion on these topics, I did not state any opinions (besides things like evolution being obviously true)

I still have not had the time to research much about Apocalypticism and whether or not Jesus himself claimed to be God during his mission. Nonetheless, it is interesting what conclusions secular and theist scholars have come to.

The issue is not really the interpretation of Scripture but whether or not we obey it.

Paraphrase of Albert Mohler. From memory so apologies to him for any error.

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

I agree with you - I never said that was the case? I personally know many people (including myself and my wife) who have deconstructed from fundamental Christianity and still view Christ as a deity.

---

You gave credence to the idea Christ was not Christ at all.

"Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching."

Why would you do that?

---

The purpose of the original post was to open the door for discussion on these topics, I did not state any opinions (besides things like evolution being obviously true)

I still have not had the time to research much about Apocalypticism and whether or not Jesus himself claimed to be God during his mission. Nonetheless, it is interesting what conclusions secular and theist scholars have come to.

---

If you open the discussion about the validity of deity of Christ you are apostatizing from the Christian faith, there's no way to finesse it as otherwise.

There is no Christianity if He's not the God-man messiah, and all subsequent efforts to pretend Christianity has any value apart from that are a mockery.

So if you know anyone claiming to be "Christian" that entertains that Christ is not Christ, they are not Christians.

And I'm not really interested in the sophistry of non Christians about what they think Christianity should be.

---

I believe you are perhaps misinterpreting what I wrote - on the topic I referred to scholars are debating whether or not Jesus himself believed he was God, not whether he was God or not.

You obviously cannot prove if someone was God, at the end of the day that is a faith decision

Again - I am not stating this is my belief, and would guess this is a view held by a minority of those deconstructing.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

I agree with you - I never said that was the case? I personally know many people (including myself and my wife) who have deconstructed from fundamental Christianity and still view Christ as a deity.

---

You gave credence to the idea Christ was not Christ at all.

"Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching."

Why would you do that?

---

The purpose of the original post was to open the door for discussion on these topics, I did not state any opinions (besides things like evolution being obviously true)

I still have not had the time to research much about Apocalypticism and whether or not Jesus himself claimed to be God during his mission. Nonetheless, it is interesting what conclusions secular and theist scholars have come to.

---

If you open the discussion about the validity of deity of Christ you are apostatizing from the Christian faith, there's no way to finesse it as otherwise.

There is no Christianity if He's not the God-man messiah, and all subsequent efforts to pretend Christianity has any value apart from that are a mockery.

So if you know anyone claiming to be "Christian" that entertains that Christ is not Christ, they are not Christians.

And I'm not really interested in the sophistry of non Christians about what they think Christianity should be.

---

I believe you are perhaps misinterpreting what I wrote - on the topic I referred to scholars are debating whether or not Jesus himself believed he was God, not whether he was God or not.

You obviously cannot prove if someone was God, at the end of the day that is a faith decision

Again - I am not stating this is my belief, and would guess this is a view held by a minority of those deconstructing.

---

I am not interested in the sophistry of non believers claiming scholarship about Christianity, and it is of no value or edification to Christianity to give their sophistry an audience.

If someone doubts their faith for a season and returns that is one thing, but if someone recasts a set of beliefs in their own image and cites non Christians as their sources, then tries to market this Frankensteined belief system of moralism and cherry picked beliefs as Christianity, then no, they are not deconstructing or reconstructing or anything in between, they are simply apostate.

It's straight forward stuff.

And if someone is questioning whether or not Christ thought He was Christ then they are questioning His deity, you can't torture language enough to spin that as otherwise.

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

I agree with you - I never said that was the case? I personally know many people (including myself and my wife) who have deconstructed from fundamental Christianity and still view Christ as a deity.

---

You gave credence to the idea Christ was not Christ at all.

"Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching."

Why would you do that?

---

The purpose of the original post was to open the door for discussion on these topics, I did not state any opinions (besides things like evolution being obviously true)

I still have not had the time to research much about Apocalypticism and whether or not Jesus himself claimed to be God during his mission. Nonetheless, it is interesting what conclusions secular and theist scholars have come to.

---

If you open the discussion about the validity of deity of Christ you are apostatizing from the Christian faith, there's no way to finesse it as otherwise.

There is no Christianity if He's not the God-man messiah, and all subsequent efforts to pretend Christianity has any value apart from that are a mockery.

So if you know anyone claiming to be "Christian" that entertains that Christ is not Christ, they are not Christians.

And I'm not really interested in the sophistry of non Christians about what they think Christianity should be.

---

I believe you are perhaps misinterpreting what I wrote - on the topic I referred to scholars are debating whether or not Jesus himself believed he was God, not whether he was God or not.

You obviously cannot prove if someone was God, at the end of the day that is a faith decision

Again - I am not stating this is my belief, and would guess this is a view held by a minority of those deconstructing.

---

I am not interested in the sophistry of non believers claiming scholarship about Christianity, and it is of no value or edification to Christianity to give their sophistry an audience.

If someone doubts their faith for a season and returns that is one thing, but if someone recasts a set of beliefs in their own image and cites non Christians as their sources, then tries to market this Frankensteined belief system of moralism and cherry picked beliefs as Christianity, then no, they are not deconstructing or reconstructing or anything in between, they are simply apostate.

It's straight forward stuff.

And if someone is questioning whether or not Christ thought He was Christ then they are questioning His deity, you can't torture language enough to spin that as otherwise.

---

I respectfully disagree, but thank you for providing your perspective.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

I agree with you - I never said that was the case? I personally know many people (including myself and my wife) who have deconstructed from fundamental Christianity and still view Christ as a deity.

---

You gave credence to the idea Christ was not Christ at all.

"Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching."

Why would you do that?

---

The purpose of the original post was to open the door for discussion on these topics, I did not state any opinions (besides things like evolution being obviously true)

I still have not had the time to research much about Apocalypticism and whether or not Jesus himself claimed to be God during his mission. Nonetheless, it is interesting what conclusions secular and theist scholars have come to.

---

If you open the discussion about the validity of deity of Christ you are apostatizing from the Christian faith, there's no way to finesse it as otherwise.

There is no Christianity if He's not the God-man messiah, and all subsequent efforts to pretend Christianity has any value apart from that are a mockery.

So if you know anyone claiming to be "Christian" that entertains that Christ is not Christ, they are not Christians.

And I'm not really interested in the sophistry of non Christians about what they think Christianity should be.

---

I believe you are perhaps misinterpreting what I wrote - on the topic I referred to scholars are debating whether or not Jesus himself believed he was God, not whether he was God or not.

You obviously cannot prove if someone was God, at the end of the day that is a faith decision

Again - I am not stating this is my belief, and would guess this is a view held by a minority of those deconstructing.

---

I am not interested in the sophistry of non believers claiming scholarship about Christianity, and it is of no value or edification to Christianity to give their sophistry an audience.

If someone doubts their faith for a season and returns that is one thing, but if someone recasts a set of beliefs in their own image and cites non Christians as their sources, then tries to market this Frankensteined belief system of moralism and cherry picked beliefs as Christianity, then no, they are not deconstructing or reconstructing or anything in between, they are simply apostate.

It's straight forward stuff.

And if someone is questioning whether or not Christ thought He was Christ then they are questioning His deity, you can't torture language enough to spin that as otherwise.

---

I respectfully disagree, but thank you for providing your perspective.

---

You can't deny the deity of Christ and be a Christian, there's no room for disagreement, respectful or otherwise.

So entertaining a sophist's arguments that He didn't believe He was divine and therefore not even Christ at all is a grave disrespect to Christianity itself if one is going to insist that is valid position for a professing Christian to have.

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

I agree with you - I never said that was the case? I personally know many people (including myself and my wife) who have deconstructed from fundamental Christianity and still view Christ as a deity.

---

You gave credence to the idea Christ was not Christ at all.

"Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching."

Why would you do that?

---

The purpose of the original post was to open the door for discussion on these topics, I did not state any opinions (besides things like evolution being obviously true)

I still have not had the time to research much about Apocalypticism and whether or not Jesus himself claimed to be God during his mission. Nonetheless, it is interesting what conclusions secular and theist scholars have come to.

---

If you open the discussion about the validity of deity of Christ you are apostatizing from the Christian faith, there's no way to finesse it as otherwise.

There is no Christianity if He's not the God-man messiah, and all subsequent efforts to pretend Christianity has any value apart from that are a mockery.

So if you know anyone claiming to be "Christian" that entertains that Christ is not Christ, they are not Christians.

And I'm not really interested in the sophistry of non Christians about what they think Christianity should be.

---

I believe you are perhaps misinterpreting what I wrote - on the topic I referred to scholars are debating whether or not Jesus himself believed he was God, not whether he was God or not.

You obviously cannot prove if someone was God, at the end of the day that is a faith decision

Again - I am not stating this is my belief, and would guess this is a view held by a minority of those deconstructing.

---

I am not interested in the sophistry of non believers claiming scholarship about Christianity, and it is of no value or edification to Christianity to give their sophistry an audience.

If someone doubts their faith for a season and returns that is one thing, but if someone recasts a set of beliefs in their own image and cites non Christians as their sources, then tries to market this Frankensteined belief system of moralism and cherry picked beliefs as Christianity, then no, they are not deconstructing or reconstructing or anything in between, they are simply apostate.

It's straight forward stuff.

And if someone is questioning whether or not Christ thought He was Christ then they are questioning His deity, you can't torture language enough to spin that as otherwise.

---

I respectfully disagree, but thank you for providing your perspective.

---

You can't deny the deity of Christ and be a Christian, there's no room for disagreement, respectful or otherwise.

So entertaining a sophist's arguments that He didn't believe He was divine and therefore not even Christ at all is a grave disrespect to Christianity itself if one is going to insist that is valid position for a professing Christian to have.

---

Per my last email, that was not what I said.

I am not questioning Christ's divinity, instead of if Christ knew of his divinity while on earth. If you are uncomfortable looking into these topics, I completely understand.

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

I agree with you - I never said that was the case? I personally know many people (including myself and my wife) who have deconstructed from fundamental Christianity and still view Christ as a deity.

---

You gave credence to the idea Christ was not Christ at all.

"Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching."

Why would you do that?

---

The purpose of the original post was to open the door for discussion on these topics, I did not state any opinions (besides things like evolution being obviously true)

I still have not had the time to research much about Apocalypticism and whether or not Jesus himself claimed to be God during his mission. Nonetheless, it is interesting what conclusions secular and theist scholars have come to.

---

If you open the discussion about the validity of deity of Christ you are apostatizing from the Christian faith, there's no way to finesse it as otherwise.

There is no Christianity if He's not the God-man messiah, and all subsequent efforts to pretend Christianity has any value apart from that are a mockery.

So if you know anyone claiming to be "Christian" that entertains that Christ is not Christ, they are not Christians.

And I'm not really interested in the sophistry of non Christians about what they think Christianity should be.

---

I believe you are perhaps misinterpreting what I wrote - on the topic I referred to scholars are debating whether or not Jesus himself believed he was God, not whether he was God or not.

You obviously cannot prove if someone was God, at the end of the day that is a faith decision

Again - I am not stating this is my belief, and would guess this is a view held by a minority of those deconstructing.

---

I am not interested in the sophistry of non believers claiming scholarship about Christianity, and it is of no value or edification to Christianity to give their sophistry an audience.

If someone doubts their faith for a season and returns that is one thing, but if someone recasts a set of beliefs in their own image and cites non Christians as their sources, then tries to market this Frankensteined belief system of moralism and cherry picked beliefs as Christianity, then no, they are not deconstructing or reconstructing or anything in between, they are simply apostate.

It's straight forward stuff.

And if someone is questioning whether or not Christ thought He was Christ then they are questioning His deity, you can't torture language enough to spin that as otherwise.

---

I respectfully disagree, but thank you for providing your perspective.

---

You can't deny the deity of Christ and be a Christian, there's no room for disagreement, respectful or otherwise.

So entertaining a sophist's arguments that He didn't believe He was divine and therefore not even Christ at all is a grave disrespect to Christianity itself if one is going to insist that is valid position for a professing Christian to have.

---

Per my last email, that was not what I said.

I am not questioning Christ's divinity, instead of if Christ knew of his divinity while on earth. If you are uncomfortable looking into these topics, I completely understand.

---

And I am telling you in no uncertain terms there is no edification in entertaining people that do as you have done.

I am not uncomfortable looking into these topics, I just am not impressed by your pseudo intellectual attempts to pretend you can be winsome about being apostate.

Asking "Hey, what if God didn't know He was God?" isn't a Christian belief, and serves zero value to the gospel or the kingdom, in fact it's heretical.

He Hate Me said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

Ursus Americanus said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Deconstructing is a misleading term. We used to more precisely call it apostacy.

---

They like to make it sound as if they were the victims of their upbringing typically, that some mega church or youth group cliches they endured made the person, work, and worth of Christ and church history invalid.

Because you know, reasons of a secular progressive lens that usually have next to nothing to do with the gospel itself.

---

While I am sure there are people who mistakenly use the term deconstructing when referring to addressing personal issues with the church, any intellectually honest person knows they are completely separate topics.

The OP was solely about interpreting the Bible and the historical context.

---

Anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ is not a Christian and is not intellectually honest about being one.

---

I agree with you - I never said that was the case? I personally know many people (including myself and my wife) who have deconstructed from fundamental Christianity and still view Christ as a deity.

---

You gave credence to the idea Christ was not Christ at all.

"Historical Jesus - Scholars and theologians who have dedicated their lives to studying Jesus now are quite certain that Jesus believed and taught Apocalypticism, and did not even consider himself to be God. This obviously does not mesh well with fundamental Christian teaching."

Why would you do that?

---

The purpose of the original post was to open the door for discussion on these topics, I did not state any opinions (besides things like evolution being obviously true)

I still have not had the time to research much about Apocalypticism and whether or not Jesus himself claimed to be God during his mission. Nonetheless, it is interesting what conclusions secular and theist scholars have come to.

---

If you open the discussion about the validity of deity of Christ you are apostatizing from the Christian faith, there's no way to finesse it as otherwise.

There is no Christianity if He's not the God-man messiah, and all subsequent efforts to pretend Christianity has any value apart from that are a mockery.

So if you know anyone claiming to be "Christian" that entertains that Christ is not Christ, they are not Christians.

And I'm not really interested in the sophistry of non Christians about what they think Christianity should be.

---

I believe you are perhaps misinterpreting what I wrote - on the topic I referred to scholars are debating whether or not Jesus himself believed he was God, not whether he was God or not.

You obviously cannot prove if someone was God, at the end of the day that is a faith decision

Again - I am not stating this is my belief, and would guess this is a view held by a minority of those deconstructing.

---

I am not interested in the sophistry of non believers claiming scholarship about Christianity, and it is of no value or edification to Christianity to give their sophistry an audience.

If someone doubts their faith for a season and returns that is one thing, but if someone recasts a set of beliefs in their own image and cites non Christians as their sources, then tries to market this Frankensteined belief system of moralism and cherry picked beliefs as Christianity, then no, they are not deconstructing or reconstructing or anything in between, they are simply apostate.

It's straight forward stuff.

And if someone is questioning whether or not Christ thought He was Christ then they are questioning His deity, you can't torture language enough to spin that as otherwise.

---

I respectfully disagree, but thank you for providing your perspective.

---

You can't deny the deity of Christ and be a Christian, there's no room for disagreement, respectful or otherwise.

So entertaining a sophist's arguments that He didn't believe He was divine and therefore not even Christ at all is a grave disrespect to Christianity itself if one is going to insist that is valid position for a professing Christian to have.

---

Per my last email, that was not what I said.

I am not questioning Christ's divinity, instead of if Christ knew of his divinity while on earth. If you are uncomfortable looking into these topics, I completely understand.

---

How would God not know he was God? That is pretty silly.

---

The whole "deconstruction" schtick boils down to behaving winsomely ridiculous and denying that they're apostate.

Blunt truth is the only reply they deserve because they'll torture language and put forth all the sophistry imaginable to justify how open minded they think they are and think you aren't.

I probably shouldn't comment here but I'll try and tone it down. I was born before WWII, by months. We attended a Baptist or a Deciples of Christ church depending which town we lived in.

I sang Jesus Loves Me because my momma told me so. At Baylor I joined 7th and James but never really attended during my freshman year and hardly thereafter. At the time of my marriage I joined the Episcopal Church because my wife's family had generations in that Church.

Our children were cradle Episcopals. They attended Episcopal Schools. I cannot ever recall any conversations about religion other that at Christmas and Easter from childhood through today. None of our children nor the grandkids attend services.

I had a near fatal illness decades ago and I prayed every day. It gave me comfort. But in the end I find discussions like the ones above where "if you don't believe like I do..." leave me cold. If everyone could just practice the basic principle of all religions it would help the world. I'm a big believer in rules.

Never ever accepted Virgin Birth, nor parting of Red Sea, Johna and the Whale was to scare kids.

Most on here porbably think I'm headed straight for their version of hell. I'm happy thinking I was born here in the USA by evolution. A great topic for another day.