Just For Baa

[Justus]

I heard a theologian talking about the passage in John 14:11in which it is written:

 

 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
 

He seemed quite sincere about his belief that science bears this out as being unquestionably true.

Moreover he even list 5 different elements in man that are directly related to the Creator;

 

So would we be in agreement if it was said that any association between the passage in John 14:11 and the physical

nature of man in the universe with the elements of mass being in man would be totally bogus?

[bornagainathiest]

Before I can answer your question Justus I'd first need you to provide a link to where this theologian said these things, so that I could read what he said for myself, in it's proper context.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[Justus]

As I said, I 'heard' not saw but if you would link so can see someone discussing this talking point.  I'll see what I can find.

 

https://youtu.be/aTZyVZBtP70?t=2m38s

 

Which one of the elements that are in us and that we are in, will we find the spoken word in, any thoughts?

[bornagainathiest]

As I said, I 'heard' not saw but if you would link so can see someone discussing this talking point.  I'll see what I can find.

 

https://youtu.be/aTZyVZBtP70?t=2m38s

 

Which one of the elements that are in us and that we are in, will we find the spoken word in, any thoughts?

 

Yes, Justus.

 

I don't understand the above question.

 

Please explain what you mean by 'the spoken word' being 'in' the chemical elements of the periodic table.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[Justus]

I apologize by my rhetorical question in my reponse and will try to stay on topic, is it bogus to associate our physical nature with scriptural references such as that one found in John 14:11?

[bornagainathiest]

I apologize by my rhetorical question in my reponse and will try to stay on topic, is it bogus to associate our physical nature with scriptural references such as that one found in John 14:11?

 

That depends on how you do the associating, Justus.

 

Poetically?  Metaphorically?  Symbolically?  Allegorically?  Literally?  Holistically?  Scientifically?

 

But, before the mode of association is settled on, it's first necessary for us to define (and agree upon) what is meant by, 'our physical nature'.

 

With both of us agreeing on that definition and with the mode of association also chosen, defined and agreed on, the last requirement is for us to define (and agree upon) what constitutes 'bogus' and what doesn't.

 

Once these necessary steps have been taken, I can then give your question due consideration.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Justus]

All that just to have a simple conversation.  

[bornagainathiest]

Here's a worked example of what might happen if we don't put in the necessary work, Justus.

 

1.  You ask me if it is bogus to associate our physical nature with scriptural references such as that found in John 14 : 11.

2.  But you don't tell what your understanding is of the words... associate, physical nature and bogus.

3.  Not knowing what your understanding of them is, I go with my understanding of them and answer your question.

4.  Since my understanding and your understanding probably don't agree, you probably won't agree with my answer.

5.  So in your eyes, I'm wrong.

6.  But in my eyes, you're wrong.

 

Yet this impasse could have been avoided if we'd taken the time and effort to understand each other better.

 

So, do you want to put in the necessary work to avoid misunderstandings, Justus?

[florduh]

Hold on boys. I need to make a run for popcorn. BBL.

[Justus]

 Wait a second what do you mean by make a run,   please define popcorn.  Don't forget the butter.

 

So in your eyes, I'm wrong.
But in my eyes, you're wrong.

 

 

So what's so hard to agree to that?  After all is that having a healthy respect for the opinions of others?    Yet, seriously, the reference to the universe being in him, and him being in the universe certainly leads one to at least the idea that it is possibly was drawn from that passage, or would you consider that as just a coincidence?

[sdelsolray]

Mr. Passive-Aggressive speaks.

[florduh]

Agree on terms and definitions or there can be no productive discussion or debate. 

[Justus]

Mr. Passive-Aggressive speaks.

 

Glad to you see you made bail.

 

Agree on terms and definitions or there can be no productive discussion or debate. 

 

OMG! so if I ask you how the weather is do we both have to have meteorological degree to discuss the weather?

[bornagainathiest]

Agree on terms and definitions or there can be no productive discussion or debate. 

 

Was a productive discussion and/or debate all that Justus wanted when he created this thread, (just for me) Florduh?

.

.

.

Is that the reason you created this thread, Justus? 

.

.

.

Just to have a productive discussion and/or debate with me?

[bornagainathiest]

Justus,

 

I'm quite happy to have an informal, unstructured chat with you - if that's what you want.

 

But I'm not happy to let you call the shots when it comes to the meanings and definitions of the words we use in this thread.

 

So either negotiate with me and arrive at agreed meanings and definitions in a formal debate...

 

...or join me in an informal, unstructured chat where our words can mean anything.

 

Your choice.

[Justus]

It not my intention to define the meaning of words or terms you use, if I am not sure I will ask you.   However, I would expect you to say what mean and mean what you say.  I am not really into the word gotcha games, or the code talkers - double meaning foolishness which leaves only them lost as a result.  

 

In such, I could have pulled up other source which used a theologian making the same association between the (Father) in the verse as the Universe as Dr. Tyson did in the video.   While you yourself would  know the way you would have responded one such as Ken Ham or other creationist was used to make such representation, considering if the Bible is just myths to begin with the answer would clearly be a matter of ipso fact.  

 

 

While personally I thought you would have blasted the proposed premise out of the water  on sight, and thus would could have clearly agreed.  You didn't.  

 

However, enjoying  gotcha on precepts is another thing,  which in this case I was not trying to get you.  So having got that, I guess that concludes this thread for. Thanks.

[sdelsolray]

It not my intention to define the meaning of words or terms you use, if I am not sure I will ask you.   However, I would expect you to say what mean and mean what you say.  I am not really into the word gotcha games, or the code talkers - double meaning foolishness which leaves only them lost as a result.  

 

In such, I could have pulled up other source which used a theologian making the same association between the (Father) in the verse as the Universe as Dr. Tyson did in the video.   While you yourself would  know the way you would have responded one such as Ken Ham or other creationist was used to make such representation, considering if the Bible is just myths to begin with the answer would clearly be a matter of ipso fact.  

 

 

While personally I thought you would have blasted the proposed premise out of the water  on sight, and thus would could have clearly agreed.  You didn't.  

 

However, enjoying  gotcha on precepts is another thing,  which in this case I was not trying to get you.  So having got that, I guess that concludes this thread for. Thanks.

 

 

 

Translated:  I'm too lazy, it's too hard and I don't care to get involved with rational discourse.

[duderonomy]

All of that from Justus, who just the other day played word games in another thread over was the Bible literally written, or did he (Justus) take the Bible literally in an exchange between himself and BAA.

 

 

ETA:   Posts 39-42 from this thread;  http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71678-unrepentant-baptist-liar-for-jesus-six-years-on-and-still-lying/page-3