Zone1 What exactly did Jesus mean when He said "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do"?

[Red Front]

"And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, saying, behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:

And they [i.e., Gentiles] shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him [emphasis mine]: and the third day he shall rise again." -- Matthew 20:17-19

Gentiles -- that is, bad Gentiles, as opposed to good Gentiles -- killed Jesus.

Yeah but Christians would often cite passages like these:

“What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all [the Jews] said to him, “Let Him be crucified!” Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!” When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.” All the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:22-25)​

To murder Jews. It's a blood libel against Jews. The name of the man who betrayed Jesus is "Judas", which means "Judah"/Jewish. The Jews.


Read:

Who Killed Jesus? - Outreach Judaism

Question: Dear Rabbi, What can you answer to a “Christian” who claims that the Jews killed Jesus? I was too angry to think clearly of a good answer for that. Thank you. P.S. . . It’s hard to be a Jew in Hawaii sometimes! Answer: You shouldn’t get so angry at Christians who insist that

outreachjudaism.org

 

[norwegen]

"And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, saying, behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:

And they [i.e., Gentiles] shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him [emphasis mine]: and the third day he shall rise again." -- Matthew 20:17-19

Gentiles -- that is, bad Gentiles, as opposed to good Gentiles -- killed Jesus.

And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, saying, behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:

Christ's death was the will of the Jews. Those Roman soldiers had no idea why the Jews wanted him dead. They did not know what they were doing when they nailed him to the tree.

 

[norwegen]

Yeah but Christians would often cite passages like these:

“What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all [the Jews] said to him, “Let Him be crucified!” Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!” When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.” All the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:22-25)​

To murder Jews. It's a blood libel against Jews. The name of the man who betrayed Jesus is "Judas", which means "Judah"/Jewish. The Jews.


Read:

Who Killed Jesus? - Outreach Judaism

Question: Dear Rabbi, What can you answer to a “Christian” who claims that the Jews killed Jesus? I was too angry to think clearly of a good answer for that. Thank you. P.S. . . It’s hard to be a Jew in Hawaii sometimes! Answer: You shouldn’t get so angry at Christians who insist that

outreachjudaism.org

Yep. And guess who Judas betrayed Jesus to.

The Jews.

 

[Clyde 154]

so wrong, all beings on planet earth evolve is poof of moral similarities - for the spiritual content of metaphysical physiology that emerged on earth when conditions became conducive for life and its progression.

Prove that all men evolve through the Scientific Method of Observable, Reproducible, Consistent experiments that concludes with facts in evidence. Evolution is not a LAW OF PHYSICS its a theory based upon philosophy not applied science.

Show us the experiment from the laws of physics that explain the origins of the Universe.......Even Hawking concluded that the Universe must have created itself from Nothing........directly in opposition to the Laws of Physics. Then present the experiment that proves that LIFE evolved from dead matter.......you will not because every time the facts of science are applied to test this theory, its been falsified by the science instead of confirmed. If not show us the experiment where live has been produced from dead matter in the lab.

 

[Clyde 154]

"Holy" and "scripture" according to whom?

More Ad Hominem BS?

Holy and Scripture according to whom? The eyewitnesses recorded in the Holy Scriptures. Prove they were lying when they stated, "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses to of His majesty." -- 2 Peter 1:16

Clearly you are a communist and support despotism.........you do not accept the logical and legal premise that one is innocent until proven guilty. Its you that attempts to prosecute the Holy Scriptures as being false; YOU ACCUSE, then attempt to demand that your accusations be proven false instead of presenting any factual information to prosecute your accusation, LOL .........they are your accusations prosecute them with facts.

.......thus, the prima facie evidence found in the Holy Scriptures presented by eyewitness accounting stands as truth until "YOU" can present the objective facts in evidence to disprove these N.T. testimonies (TESTAMENT means profession of truth).

You have the mule attempting to push the plow..........by putting your cart before the horses. You are attempting to declare that the Bible can not defend itself by the content that you are objecting to as being false. Then you are bragging about MORALITY coming from nature. Just how moral is it to accuse without the evidence to support your bloviated charges? Only a communist would deny due process..........everyone has the inalienable right to defend themselves, even the authors of the Bible. What's next.........burning the Bibles you detest, rounding up Christians and sentencing them to the Gulag?

 

[ding]

As human beings, we experience the world subjectively. Our subjective experience arises from the emergent properties and realities that cannot be reduced to individual physical properties or processes. These subjective realities include our emotions, beliefs, desires, and values.

Not everyone experiences the world subjectively. There's a distribution. Some experience the world subjectively most of the time. They probably don't do it all of the time. Some experience the world objectively most of the time. They too do not probably do it all of the time. Those are boundary conditions which define the envelope. Everyone else falls somewhere in the middle of those two boundaries.

Subjectivity does not emerge from the emergent properties and realities that cannot be reduced to individual physical properties or processes. That's nonsense gobbledygook. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to subjective rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he subjectively rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

As humans, we are a unique species with a higher level of consciousness, cognitive abilities, and the capacity for creativity, empathy, and morality. Our ability to experience life and interact with the world around us is more than just a result of our individual physical properties and processes. There are emergent non-physical, subjective realities that arise from the interaction of those individual material properties and processes.

You seem to be arguing that man is more than just matter which is a core belief of atheism. One that most atheists recoil from. It seems they want to have their cake and eat it too. At the heart of the debate is the source of these so-called "emergent non-physical" properties of humans. If the source is the material world then the logical conclusion is that there is no other purpose in life other than satisfying man's material needs and primitive instincts. If the source is the constant presence of mind which created the material world, then the logical conclusion is that there is another purpose in life other than satisfying man's material needs and primitive instincts.

 

[ding]

Reducing the human animal to its individual physical properties is a fallacy. While it is true that we are comprised of material properties and processes, it is not the whole story. The reductionist fallacy ignores the emergent properties and realities that arise from the interaction of those individual parts. For example, consider the notion of consciousness. Consciousness is not reducible to any individual physical property or process. It emerges from the functional relationship between individual parts of the brain. Our identity, personality, and ability to experience life and interact with the world around us are also emergent properties that cannot be reduced to any individual physical property or process.

Reducing the human animal to its individual physical properties is exactly what every militant atheists society that has ever existed has done in practice. So it's no fallacy. Reason and experience tell us that atheism is predicated on reducing the human animal to its individual physical properties as that is all they believe that exists.

Again... you seem to be arguing against atheism.

 

[ding]

The emergence of subjective realities can be seen in the example of a computer. While a computer is made up of individual hardware components, it is not just the sum of its parts. The software that runs on the computer is an emergent property that cannot be reduced to any individual hardware component. Within the realm of software, there are other emergent properties and realities that are not physical. The emergence of non-physical, subjective realities is what makes us living, sentient human beings. Our ability to experience the world subjectively, and to have emotions, beliefs, desires, and values is what gives our lives meaning and purpose.

This is more gobbledygook nonsense. I explained subjectivity to you in a previous post so I won't do it again here. The interesting thing about the computer and software analogy is that it requires a programmer. Some have speculated that the world we live in is a computer simulation. No doubt the basis for this idea comes from the fact that everything is in reality just information. Information is incorporeal. The physical world is made up of mind stuff. That the corporeal proceeded from the incorporeal.

Your last sentence is you recoiling from the logical conclusion of atheism.

 

[ding]

To reduce humans to their individual physical properties and processes is to deny the value of these emergent properties and realities. Yes, we are a form or type of animal, with its own unique set of emergent properties and realities that make us who we are. You make the mistake of reducing the human-animal, to its individual physical properties and processes. That's a falacy. Our consciousness, identity, personality, and ability to experience life and interact with the world around us are emergent properties that cannot be reduced to any individual physical property or process.

Again... this is you recoiling from the logical conclusion that you are only matter and that there is no higher purpose for your existence than satisfying your material needs and primitive instincts.

 

[ding]

In conclusion:

What is the reductionist fallacy?

The reductionist fallacy is the belief that complex phenomena can be explained solely by understanding their individual components.

Why is it important to recognize emergent properties?

Emergent properties are what make complex phenomena, such as consciousness and identity, possible. Without recognizing these emergent properties, we cannot fully understand the complexity of the world around us.

Can emergent properties be reduced to individual physical properties or processes?

No, emergent properties are the result of the functional relationships between individual physical properties and processes. They cannot be reduced to any individual component.

Why is it important to recognize the value of subjective realities?

Subjective realities, such as emotions, beliefs, desires, and values, are what give our lives meaning and purpose. Without recognizing their value, we risk reducing humans to mere physical objects.

How does the emergence of software on a computer illustrate the concept of emergent properties?

Software is an emergent property that arises from the functional relationship between individual hardware components.

Again... this is you recoiling from the logical conclusion that you are only matter and that there is no higher purpose for your existence than satisfying your material needs and primitive instincts.

 

[ding]

There is no nourishment in chewing on a dry bone. I simply made a point..........your sentence structure and use of certain words vary from post to post.........especially when you can't justify your argument by the use of the Holy Scriptures.

I haven't copied and pasted anything from the NET as you claimed. And you don't seem to be able to point to any of my posts which support your allegation.

Yes, my sentence structure and use of certain words changes from post to post because I am writing them as I type the posts from my own beliefs.

What argument would you like for me to justify with Scripture?

 

[ding]

You're playing mind tricks on yourself. Theists believe their deity is whatever or whoever they say it is. You're in the same boat as us atheists. My highest value is life itself, which actually exists because I and most likely, you, are alive and conscious. My morality is based upon the premise that life, especially human life, should be cherished and protected. Any pattern of thought and behavior that undermines human life, in any way, is considered immoral by atheists who share my values. You, on the other hand, base what is right or wrong, upon religious doctrines i.e. a "holy book", that often undermines human survival and progress. The foundation of your morality is even more subjective than mine because my moral foundation is the survival and flourishing of life. Life does exist, right? And don't you want to survive and thrive? Yes, you do, don't lie. Life and its success is the foundation of my morality, whereas yours is based upon religious mythology (a bunch of silly shit). An imaginary god entity that orders his followers to commit acts of infanticide.

That's incorrect. My beliefs are based upon reason and experience. The universe did pop into existence in an implausible way being implausibly hardwired to produce life and intelligence. Logically the only eternal source is the incorporeal. My perception of God is that God is every extant attribute of reality because God is the source of all reality. As such it is the constant presence of mind which created a physical world that produces beings that know and create.

 

[Red Front]

That's incorrect. My beliefs are based upon reason and experience. The universe did pop into existence in an implausible way being implausibly hardwired to produce life and intelligence. Logically the only eternal source is the incorporeal. My perception of God is that God is every extant attribute of reality because God is the source of all reality. As such it is the constant presence of mind which created a physical world that produces beings that know and create.

No one knows exactly how the universe came into existence. The big bang theory, the most widely accepted theory of how our universe came to be, doesn't answer the question of whether there was anything before it, or outside of it, or whether its singularity was absolutely timeless..etc. For all we know there might have been other "big bangs" and the universe expands and then contracts back into a singularity or continues to expand and causes another big bang through some process that we haven't identified yet. We simply don't know and for anyone to pretend that they know, demonstrates a lack of integrity. Your "god of the gaps" proves nothing. Saying "god did it", is not an explanation.

 

[Red Front]

Again... this is you recoiling from the logical conclusion that you are only matter and that there is no higher purpose for your existence than satisfying your material needs and primitive instincts.

We determine what are purpose is, and it doesn't have to be reduced to satisfying physical needs or desires. That's just your silly rhetoric.

 

[Red Front]

This is more gobbledygook nonsense. I explained subjectivity to you in a previous post so I won't do it again here. The interesting thing about the computer and software analogy is that it requires a programmer. Some have speculated that the world we live in is a computer simulation. No doubt the basis for this idea comes from the fact that everything is in reality just information. Information is incorporeal. The physical world is made up of mind stuff. That the corporeal proceeded from the incorporeal.

Your last sentence is you recoiling from the logical conclusion of atheism.

The point of the analogy is that it's an error to reduce human beings or any other sentient being, to its material properties. We believe the mind, the subjective dimension of human life can't be reduced to one particular component but is rather a non-physical emergent reality.

As far as actual software needing a programmer, that doesn;t imply the programmer is infinite or eternal. Programmers are finite, contingent beings, and that which is non-contingent or a necessary being may not be a god or conscious at all. You simply don't know if the necessary or non-contingent source of reality is a person or the god of the bible. That is nothing more than speculation on your part.

 

[BreezeWood]

Prove that all men evolve through the Scientific Method of Observable, Reproducible, Consistent experiments that concludes with facts in evidence. Evolution is not a LAW OF PHYSICS its a theory based upon philosophy not applied science.

Show us the experiment from the laws of physics that explain the origins of the Universe.......Even Hawking concluded that the Universe must have created itself from Nothing........directly in opposition to the Laws of Physics. Then present the experiment that proves that LIFE evolved from dead matter.......you will not because every time the facts of science are applied to test this theory, its been falsified by the science instead of confirmed. If not show us the experiment where live has been produced from dead matter in the lab.

so wrong, all beings on planet earth evolve is poof of moral similarities - for the spiritual content of metaphysical physiology that emerged on earth when conditions became conducive for life and its progression.

you are collating evolution w/ origin which is not what is found in evolution theory ...

physiology is a metaphysical substance not native to planet earth and evolves through progressive chemical / physical reactions. the reason their test tube will be inconclusive for living beings is the physiology also has a spiritual content that is interdependent and necessary for the spark of life that is not provided in their test tube.

the Scientific Method of Observable, Reproducible, Consistent experiments that concludes with facts in evidence.

the above is the captured evidence of the spiritual content transforming the associate physiology from a land dweller to an avian being.

and is the same for all living beings on planet earth.

 

[Red Front]

Reducing the human animal to its individual physical properties is exactly what every militant atheists society that has ever existed has done in practice. So it's no fallacy. Reason and experience tell us that atheism is predicated on reducing the human animal to its individual physical properties as that is all they believe that exists.

Again... you seem to be arguing against atheism.

It's you who does that, not me. Most atheists recognize that our subjective awareness emerges from the physical body, but it can't be reduced to any singular element, it is the result of many interactions and processes. It is a reality in and of itself, as real as the physical world. Subjective awareness and consciousness can't be reduced to one particular component, it is the result of a complex process. So it's you who is reducing life to individual properties and processes, Life is a reality that can't be reduced to anything in particular, that can be identified. Life is more of an action or verb, than a thing.

 

[BreezeWood]

"And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, saying, behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles:

And they [i.e., Gentiles] shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him [emphasis mine]: and the third day he shall rise again." -- Matthew 20:17-19

Gentiles -- that is, bad Gentiles, as opposed to good Gentiles -- killed Jesus.

Gentiles -- that is, bad Gentiles, as opposed to good Gentiles -- killed Jesus.

the Jews replied, “His blood is on us and on our children!” Matthew 27:24-25

another denier for the jews - the romans wrote the c-bible and were complicit in the crucifixion of jesus and in both instances jesus was their means through convenience to have their way ...

 

[ding]

No one knows exactly how the universe came into existence. The big bang theory, the most widely accepted theory of how our universe came to be, doesn't answer the question of whether there was anything before it, or outside of it, or whether its singularity was absolutely timeless..etc. For all we know there might have been other "big bangs" and the universe expands and then contracts back into a singularity or continues to expand and causes another big bang through some process that we haven't identified yet. We simply don't know and for anyone to pretend that they know, demonstrates a lack of integrity. Your "god of the gaps" proves nothing. Saying "god did it", is not an explanation.

You certainly don't because you don't seem to know what a singularity is. We have tons of data that shows the universe popped into existence in an implausible way. We have tons of evidence that a life filled universe is implausible. We know that matter and energy cannot be an eternal source of creating universes. It's your lack of a perception of God that prevents you from seeing God as the only source for creation. Everything is mind stuff.