"...But when I became a man, I put away childish things."

[jude3]

Do I detect sarcasm in your tone?

Actually, the silence speaks volumes in that thread. No takers on the contrarian view that we don't need logic..

But please, don't let the other thread interrupt the topics on hand here. I don't follow why the Royal Plural being used for God in the Bible isn't the most obvious explanation for this form of words, even in the TOTALITY of verses of the Bible which point to there being only one God.

Cheers,
Shafique

Of course I'm having fun with you re the logic discussion...;-) But, you started the thread as a dig towards me....

You not following why the Royal Plural being used for God isn't the most obvious explanation is neither here nor there. I think it's funny you're using ye old English to try and retro-fit your view into the Hebrew text written 3,000 years ago.

But, I'm not an English expert....and, as I'm also not a Hebrew, Greek and Latin expert...then, according to Labumba and the other angry dude, I cannot know the subject anyway. So, I guess that closes off any discussion.

Pity help someone trying to understand the Koran if they don't fully understand and know Arabic.

The argument is a joke.

[Shafique]

I see, when you are sarcastic we are meant to take it as a joke.

But I don't get your argument - are you saying that the Royal Plural does not exist in Hebrew/Aramaic? You should have just done a quick check on Wiki:

Jewish scholars point to the Majestic plural or the royal we in many verses of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh. "Obviously, the plural form is used in the same way as in the divine appellation 'Elohim', to indicate the all-inclusiveness of God's attributes of authority and power, the plurality of majesty. It is customary for one in authority to speak of himself as if he were a plurality. Hence, Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give your counsel what we shall do" (2 Samuel 16:20). The context shows that he was seeking advice for himself yet he refers to himself as 'we' (see also Ezra 4:16-19

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural

I rest my case, m'lud.

Cheers,
Shafique

[jude3]

I try and match my sacasm with your put downs...!;-)

So...wiki has finalized the subject of the trinity...!? Phew. I liken that to lambada saying "biblical scholars agree."

The bit about totality, means the dozens of ref to god appearing in human firm, the claims of Jesus, the assertions by disciples etc. We cannot agree on those, so while they remain in the text, better to be safe and accept the simplest rendering....else, human 'logic' takes over....! Oh no, not that again...!;-)

I see, when you are sarcastic we are meant to take it as a joke.

But I don't get your argument - are you saying that the Royal Plural does not exist in Hebrew/Aramaic? You should have just done a quick check on Wiki:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural

I rest my case, m'lud.

Cheers,
Shafique

[Shafique]

Please make up your mind about your sarcasm - it it meant to be humorous or revenge against put downs?

My simple point was that the use of the Royal Plural in the Bible is hardly a strong basis for trinity - especially given that the Bible records the use of the Royal Plural by humans. I didn't consider that to a 'put down' or sarcastic in any way.

Cheers,
Shafique

[jude3]

Being a logic scholar, you'll need to work me out on your own...

On the put down quote, I didn't mean what you said above....it was a general observation re your tone and style.

Some of my faves...

'which part of x don't you undertstand...?'

'I see where your misunderstanding lies...'!

If I went back, I'd dig out dozens more.

No...with piety/works theology, comes pride....and with pride, comes unpleasant tones and put downs.

Cheers

Oh, just so you know, I'm not really taking up these points with you....I'm just having some fun....you know, intellectualism....nothing that would warrant someone changing their lives...!;-)

Please make up your mind about your sarcasm - it it meant to be humorous or revenge against put downs?

My simple point was that the use of the Royal Plural in the Bible is hardly a strong basis for trinity - especially given that the Bible records the use of the Royal Plural by humans. I didn't consider that to a 'put down' or sarcastic in any way.

Cheers,
Shafique

[Shafique]

More sarcasm? You also seem to be blaming me for your sarcasm - interesting that.

An interesting post in response to quite a simple point I made on the Royal Plural in the Bible. If stating facts is 'intellectualism' then so be it. I'm amused that using God-given logic is seen as somehow a bad thing in your book, or that 'intellectualism' is a derogatory term for you. Didn't that kind of thinking get Gallileo locked up?

Anyway - I'll leave you to discuss the other points with lumumba - no need to justify your choice of sarcasm to me again.

Cheers,
Shafique

[jude3]

Intellectualism is a derogatory term which would apply to pseudo scholars....much like sciencism for the myopic secularists that dictate modern day science.

Your comment re god given intellect, is sarcasm in itself. You've just chosen to stay on your pride kick, while ignoring those ot verses I cited re how god operates...!

[Shafique]

Thanks for your opinion. I've started a separate thread on the subject of logic and theology.

One of the beauties of Islam is that it does not require one to believe in anything illogical - hence why I'm sceptical about men (or women) telling me that God requires humans to give up logic.

My 'intellectualism' and me will read your discussion with lumumba going forward, as I know you don't want to discuss the value of God-given logic in theological discourses.

Cheers,
Shafique

[jude3]

With respect, you fail to understand/accept the concept that man can still keep his god given logic for earthly matters, but for spiritual matters, we're required to follow god's rules. After all, that's his domain.

Consider the 'logic' of the Hebrew priests putting their feet in the Jordan before the river stopped. Can you explain this 'logic' in human/secular terms please?

[Shafique]

Wrong thread Jude. ( Islam does not require the distinction you are making.)

Cheers
Shafique

[jude3]

'which part of x don't you undertstand...?'

'I see where your misunderstanding lies...'!

Any retraction, apology on this type of tone?

[jude3]

Wrong thread Jude. ( Islam does not require the distinction you are making.)

Cheers
Shafique

Perhaps Islam doesn't require the distinction....but that's the problem, because god does...!

Could you explain the difference between basing a decision or belief on faith vs logic.? Use the example I cited re the priest's feet in the Jordan. Cheers.

[lumumba_s]

You all continue without me. My participation on this forum has come to an end. Take care.

[jude3]

You all continue without me. My participation on this forum has come to an end. Take care.

Is that because you realise intellectualism is all that matters...and that genuine openness may be called for....?

How's your health, btw? I trust everything is OK.

Kind regards.

[lumumba_s]

To be fair to you since I abruptly left after you began to engage: no. It is because there was a major incident in my family and I'd rather spend my time strengthening our family bonds than arguing online with someone I will probably never met in person.