It's magic, innit.That sarcastic comment raises another issue of how miracles effect their causation so...
Just something that came from the thoughts from another thread, what do Christians think God is made from; what constitutes the form of God?God is not limited by our understanding but out understanding is limited in understand God and his power.
If you respond with spirit then how did God manipulate the matter that forms the universe and our world? - as it clearly says in Genesis that he moulded the clay to create Adam.
Just something that came from the thoughts from another thread, what do Christians think God is made from; what constitutes the form of God?
If you respond with spirit then how did God manipulate the matter that forms the universe and our world? - as it clearly says in Genesis that he moulded the clay to create Adam.
Just something that came from the thoughts from another thread, what do Christians think God is made from; what constitutes the form of God?"What constitutes the form of God?" is better put than "What is God made from?" as the latter implies he was made. So, "What constitutes the form of God?"
God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
If you respond with spirit then how did God manipulate the matter that forms the universe and our world? - as it clearly says in Genesis that he moulded the clay to create Adam.
God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
If you believe that human beings have free will, then every act of human free will is a miracle because a free will event can't be defined by the deterministic chain reaction to previous events, otherwise it will not be free will. So if the human soul can interact with the chemistry of our brains to initiate free will events, God (who is responsible for our gift of free will) must also have the power to interact with the chemistry of the universe. Ample evidence of this interaction is found in the abundant life forms on this planet.
Which Christians on this forum believe that miracles still happen today and will explain by what causal means God brings them about?
Alien, how do you define 'spirit'?Eh? I wrote, "God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know." It's what God is. Beyond that I struggle.
No, I don't say, "He's made" of anything. I pointed that out in my first post. He is not flesh and bones, atoms and molecules. It's easier to say what he isn't than what he is.God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
"He's made of this stuff that I don't know what it is!" says Alan. That's just childish nonsense. If you don't know, there's nothing wrong with admitting it.
Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?
No, I don't say, "He's made" of anything.
I pointed that out in my first post. He is not flesh and bones, atoms and molecules. It's easier to say what he isn't than what he is.
Have to say that that is a pretty bad analogy. It implies that the third dimension is of the same nature as the other two so from this one would conclude that matter has another dimension that we don't inhabit. This brings to mind string theory and all that, but these have no consequences for our dimensions; not significant ones at least. I can't see how your analogy remotely addresses anything.Just something that came from the thoughts from another thread, what do Christians think God is made from; what constitutes the form of God?"What constitutes the form of God?" is better put than "What is God made from?" as the latter implies he was made. So, "What constitutes the form of God?"QuoteGod is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
If you respond with spirit then how did God manipulate the matter that forms the universe and our world? - as it clearly says in Genesis that he moulded the clay to create Adam.
Whether it is correct or not, I have always found it useful, at least conceptually, to think of God as being in another (extra) dimension. For simplicity's sake let's call that the 4th dimension.
TW will like this. If we imagine a 2 dimensional world, i.e. stuff moving within what mathematicians call a "plane", then a 3 dimensional object can interact with those 2 dimensional object. For example, if we imagine a couple of 2 dimensional people moving around in this plane, we can stop them from seeing each other or touching each other by just drawing a line between them, e.g. completely around person #1. However, a 3 dimensional person is totally at liberty to step over that line and is thus not constrained in the same way as the 2 dimensional people.
The 3 dimensional person could actually draw that line, i.e. interact with those 2 dimensional people. If that is similar to how it is with God and us, then God would have no problem manipulating/interacting with/ doing stuff in our world.
Freewill does not exist, so that nips that one in the bud. Also, your idea requires the unqualified element that you name as God. Empirical evidence required.If you believe that human beings have free will, then every act of human free will is a miracle because a free will event can't be defined by the deterministic chain reaction to previous events, otherwise it will not be free will. So if the human soul can interact with the chemistry of our brains to initiate free will events, God (who is responsible for our gift of free will) must also have the power to interact with the chemistry of the universe. Ample evidence of this interaction is found in the abundant life forms on this planet.
Which Christians on this forum believe that miracles still happen today and will explain by what causal means God brings them about?
Slugs and snails and puppy dogs tails!That's just gross!!!
So your belief in God is based on a book and your 'infallible' logic?Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?
Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?
I didn't say he was made of spirit.No, I don't say, "He's made" of anything.
What was that guff about being made of spirit then?
Like in, "...how you define that exactly, I don't know." as in my first post?QuoteI pointed that out in my first post. He is not flesh and bones, atoms and molecules. It's easier to say what he isn't than what he is.
It's easier to say you don't know, because you don't.
OK, I shall wheel out my Simpsons analogy next. When I get time, probably Wednesday.Have to say that that is a pretty bad analogy. It implies that the third dimension is of the same nature as the other two so from this one would conclude that matter has another dimension that we don't inhabit. This brings to mind string theory and all that, but these have no consequences for our dimensions; not significant ones at least. I can't see how your analogy remotely addresses anything.Just something that came from the thoughts from another thread, what do Christians think God is made from; what constitutes the form of God?"What constitutes the form of God?" is better put than "What is God made from?" as the latter implies he was made. So, "What constitutes the form of God?"QuoteGod is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
If you respond with spirit then how did God manipulate the matter that forms the universe and our world? - as it clearly says in Genesis that he moulded the clay to create Adam.
Whether it is correct or not, I have always found it useful, at least conceptually, to think of God as being in another (extra) dimension. For simplicity's sake let's call that the 4th dimension.
TW will like this. If we imagine a 2 dimensional world, i.e. stuff moving within what mathematicians call a "plane", then a 3 dimensional object can interact with those 2 dimensional object. For example, if we imagine a couple of 2 dimensional people moving around in this plane, we can stop them from seeing each other or touching each other by just drawing a line between them, e.g. completely around person #1. However, a 3 dimensional person is totally at liberty to step over that line and is thus not constrained in the same way as the 2 dimensional people.
The 3 dimensional person could actually draw that line, i.e. interact with those 2 dimensional people. If that is similar to how it is with God and us, then God would have no problem manipulating/interacting with/ doing stuff in our world.
No.So your belief in God is based on a book and your 'infallible' logic?Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?
Why not?Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?
And if you were able to partially describe him, he would not be truly God, either.
Why not?Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.
And if you were able to partially describe him, he would not be truly God, either.
Why would that be? Is that a half-remembered quote from Philipians 4:7 or something deeper?Why not?Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.
And if you were able to partially describe him, he would not be truly God, either.
A god that was somewhat amenable to general comprehension would be a lesser god than one that passethed all understanding, and therefore not really god at all.
Hoping you will forgive my villainous mangling of tenses.Mangling forgivenethed.
Just something that came from the thoughts from another thread, what do Christians think God is made from; what constitutes the form of God?Jack, God existed before time and space. As such, as people limited by space and time, we can't tell what he is made of.
If you respond with spirit then how did God manipulate the matter that forms the universe and our world? - as it clearly says in Genesis that he moulded the clay to create Adam.
This is a very bold statement that contradicts human perception of reality.
Freewill does not exist
This is a very bold statement that contradicts human perception of reality.
This is a very bold statement that contradicts human perception of reality.
Freewill does not exist
I assume it is based on the deterministic nature of events caused by other events, and the measured brain activity which precedes the perceived conscious awareness of an act of free will.
The reality is that human conscious awareness and free will are spiritual properties which have no physical explanation. The soul does whatever it takes to implement the chosen free will of human conscious awareness by initiating events which are not dependent on previous events, or even time itself. We are spiritual beings made in God's image. Just be thankful for the amazing gifts of our perception and free will.
The reality is that human conscious awareness and free will are spiritual properties which have no physical explanation. The soul does whatever it takes to implement the chosen free will of human conscious awareness by initiating events which are not dependent on previous events, or even time itself. We are spiritual beings made in God's image. Just be thankful for the amazing gifts of our perception and free will.
This is a very bold statement that contradicts human perception of reality.
Freewill does not exist
I assume it is based on the deterministic nature of events caused by other events, and the measured brain activity which precedes the perceived conscious awareness of an act of free will.
The reality is that human conscious awareness and free will are spiritual properties which have no physical explanation. The soul does whatever it takes to implement the chosen free will of human conscious awareness by initiating events which are not dependent on previous events, or even time itself. We are spiritual beings made in God's image. Just be thankful for the amazing gifts of our perception and free will.
Why would that be? Is that a half-remembered quote from Philipians 4:7 or something deeper?
A god that was somewhat amenable to general comprehension would be a lesser god than one that passethed all understanding, and therefore not really god at all.QuoteHoping you will forgive my villainous mangling of tenses.Mangling forgivenethed.
Unfortunately there isn't any evidence for free will,Your posting is ample evidence.
something by way of justification, something stronger than 'that is just how it seems'.I think of an action, and I do it.
Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberishTry "without".
something by way of justification, something stronger than 'that is just how it seems'.I think of an action, and I do it.
This is not just how it seems.
It is how it is.
Free will exists in every human being.
But it is not the memory itself which constitutes the action of free will, it is the deliberate action of bringing a memory (any memory) into your mind.
Here's a quick thought experiment to illustrate this. Get yourself comfortable, empty your mind (as far as possible), and when you are ready, do this :
Think of one of your favourite memories.
We've all got millions of memories to choose from. Now think back to that instant when your chosen memory popped into mind. Did you actually consciously choose it ? No, you did not consciously choose it, it just popped into mind from the murky depths of your subconcious. In fact, you could not possibly have consciously chosen it, because to have consciously chosen it, you would have had to have already thought of it in order to consider it. That is circular.
This illustrates how all our thoughts, all our choices, originate in subconscious mind and emerge into consciousness some small time later. You could try to argue that free will exists in subconscious mind I suppose, but that strikes me as particularly meaningless.
Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberishTry "without".
But it is not the memory itself which constitutes the action of free will, it is the deliberate action of bringing a memory (any memory) into your mind.
Here's a quick thought experiment to illustrate this. Get yourself comfortable, empty your mind (as far as possible), and when you are ready, do this :
Think of one of your favourite memories.
We've all got millions of memories to choose from. Now think back to that instant when your chosen memory popped into mind. Did you actually consciously choose it ? No, you did not consciously choose it, it just popped into mind from the murky depths of your subconcious. In fact, you could not possibly have consciously chosen it, because to have consciously chosen it, you would have had to have already thought of it in order to consider it. That is circular.
This illustrates how all our thoughts, all our choices, originate in subconscious mind and emerge into consciousness some small time later. You could try to argue that free will exists in subconscious mind I suppose, but that strikes me as particularly meaningless.
Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberishTry "without".
Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.
Slugs and snails and puppy dogs tails!That's just gross!!!
You cannot consciously choose which memory to recall.But my point is that you can consciously choose to recall a memory. It is the deliberate act to recall which is invoked by your consciousness. Allowing your sub conscious to choose which memory to invoke is not proof that the act of recall was also done by the subconscious.
You cannot consciously choose which memory to recall.But my point is that you can consciously choose to recall a memory. It is the deliberate act to recall which is invoked by your consciousness. Allowing your sub conscious to choose which memory to invoke is not proof that the act of recall was also done by the subconscious.
Len, I am pleased to see that there is something which we can agree on :)
Whilst I do not agree with the statement that free will does not exist, its existence show nothing more than that the human brain (and that of some animals) has evolved the ability somewhere in the past, suggesting that it is useful in the fight to survive and reproduce.
Consequently the introduction of the "soul" explanation is superfluous, and nothing more than the result of wishful thinking.
Len, I am pleased to see that there is something which we can agree on :)
Whilst I do not agree with the statement that free will does not exist, its existence show nothing more than that the human brain (and that of some animals) has evolved the ability somewhere in the past, suggesting that it is useful in the fight to survive and reproduce.
Consequently the introduction of the "soul" explanation is superfluous, and nothing more than the result of wishful thinking.
The reason the scientific community have problems with admitting the existence of free will is because the materialistic nature of this world does not allow events to have a deliberate cause.
Every event occuring in the brain is either random or caused by previous events.
The irony in your statement, however, is that "wishful thinking" is itself a free will event deliberately invoked by one's conscious self (your soul).
You wish! :)
I fully agree with you in this, Len.QuoteEvery event occuring in the brain is either random or caused by previous events.
Not really. Read any fiction author to disprove what you are saying.
I fully agree with you in this, Len.QuoteEvery event occuring in the brain is either random or caused by previous events.
Not really. Read any fiction author to disprove what you are saying.
The statement I wrote was not my thinking, but a quote from the scientists who do not believe in free will.
You have correctly identified the problem, Len.
But you clearly believe the conscious brain is not capable of such an activity, and resort to the "soul" to explain it.
What is your reason for this?
The conscious brain is certainly capable of invoking free will decisions.
The problem scientists have is the difficulty in defining what consciousness is comprised of. Is consciousness defined by chemical activity alone, or is it defined by an awareness of the chemical activity, and if the latter, what is it that percieves this chemical activity?
If consciousness is defined purely by chemical activity alone, there is no scope for making free will decisions, just automated decisions driven by deterministic chemical reactions.
If there is something which can perceive the chemical activity and manipulate it, then there is a source of true free will.
Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?OK, Shakes, define 'love'.
In my opinion, Freewill does not exist, so that nips that one in the bud. Also, your idea requires the unqualified element that you name as God. Empirical evidence required.FIFY, Jack.
A god that was somewhat amenable to general comprehension would be a lesser god than one that passethed all understanding, and therefore not really god at all.torri, are you able to define or explain your father or mother completely, or were there aspects of their lives that you don't fully comprehend? If the latter, are you suggesting that really they didn't exist?
Unfortunately, in my opinion, there isn't any evidence for free will, nor any for gods or souls or spirits so I'm afraid all you've posted up here is a fog of internconnected fantasies. If you want your ideas to gain traction you have to offer up something richer than mere bald repeated assertions, something by way of justification, something stronger than 'that is just how it seems'.FIFY, torri. As a result, your description of what Alien and others have posted is also "a fog of internconnected fantasies".
Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?OK, Shakes, define 'love'.
Then use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberishTry "without".
Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.
The concept of existence is temporal and the idea of a tense that isn't is an oxymoronThen use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberishTry "without".
Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.
:-[Use ancient Hebrew then. It's verbs aren't tensed. If tent-dwellers/goat-herders can manage it, I am sure you can (seriously).The concept of existence is temporal and the idea of a tense that isn't is an oxymoronThen use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberishTry "without".
Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.
:-[Use ancient Hebrew then. It's verbs aren't tensed. If tent-dwellers/goat-herders can manage it, I am sure you can (seriously).The concept of existence is temporal and the idea of a tense that isn't is an oxymoronThen use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberishTry "without".
Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.
Why do you think existence is only a temporal statement?:-[Use ancient Hebrew then. It's verbs aren't tensed. If tent-dwellers/goat-herders can manage it, I am sure you can (seriously).The concept of existence is temporal and the idea of a tense that isn't is an oxymoronThen use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberishTry "without".
Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.
Tenselessness as a linguistic lacuna does not help as you once agreed before but have apparently forgotten.
Existence is a temporal statement.
It won't make it logical if existence without time is illogical, but it would/should stop people complaining about using English tensed English verbs to describe something tenseless. There is no accurate use of English to describe a tenseless situation, whereas there is in AH, either by using such a tenseless Hebrew verb or just omitting the verb altogether.:-[Use ancient Hebrew then. It's verbs aren't tensed. If tent-dwellers/goat-herders can manage it, I am sure you can (seriously).The concept of existence is temporal and the idea of a tense that isn't is an oxymoronThen use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberishTry "without".
Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.
Tenselessness as a linguistic lacuna does not help as you once agreed before but have apparently forgotten.
Existence is a temporal statement.
Sorry, NS, I deleted that response and have replaced it with the one directly above this one. Sorry to muck you around.Why do you think existence is only a temporal statement?:-[Use ancient Hebrew then. It's verbs aren't tensed. If tent-dwellers/goat-herders can manage it, I am sure you can (seriously).The concept of existence is temporal and the idea of a tense that isn't is an oxymoronThen use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberishTry "without".
Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.
Tenselessness as a linguistic lacuna does not help as you once agreed before but have apparently forgotten.
Existence is a temporal statement.
Before we get into that, can I just check that you again accept that the tenselessness of any language does not make any sense of a fearlessness existence? You seemed to have made a claim and when challenged on it just dropped it.
I also don't see how a tenseless language would deal with the concept of being without time and being with time, as to be both using such a language would be contradictory.Bearing in mind the inadequacy of English, with its tensed verbs to described tenseless scenarios, I would go with William Lane Craig and suggest that God-without-the-universe = atemporal God whereas God-with-the-universe = temporal God.
I use existence to talk about the state of something temporally, it seems to be how it is used in a descriptive sense. I cannot currently see what non temporal existence could possibly mean but it is being asserted. The only explanation I am receiving is it is like temporal existence but non temporal, which reads like it's like a two dimensional square but not two dimensional.NS, I can fully understand why you 'cannot currently see what non-temporal existence could possibly mean', in the same way that many can't understand how a variety of things occur or mean; it is usually related to a lack of experience of that kind of thing, or an unawareness of the nature of it. That is not, however, evidence that something doesn't exist. It simply doesn't exist in one's experience.
I use existence to talk about the state of something temporally, it seems to be how it is used in a descriptive sense. I cannot currently see what non temporal existence could possibly mean but it is being asserted. The only explanation I am receiving is it is like temporal existence but non temporal, which reads like it's like a two dimensional square but not two dimensional.NS, I can fully understand why you 'cannot currently see what non-temporal existence could possibly mean', in the same way that many can't understand how a variety of things occur or mean; it is usually related to a lack of experience of that kind of thing, or an unawareness of the nature of it. That is not, however, evidence that something doesn't exist. It simply doesn't exist in one's experience.
Perhaps I've missed a few of the more finicky nuances but that seems to cover most bases?Precisely, you have missed out nuances without which you have only given a partial picture. Does that mean that - as you can't explain it in full - it shouldn't be believed in? (as per your post that started this particular line of discussion)
The 'no' answer requires a clarification of why you do believe. Pretty please :)No.So your belief in God is based on a book and your 'infallible' logic?Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?
So you have never done something on impulse, as a reflect action, which you have regretted afterwards and felt almost surprised by your own actions - including thoughts that pop into your head?This is a very bold statement that contradicts human perception of reality.
Freewill does not exist
I assume it is based on the deterministic nature of events caused by other events, and the measured brain activity which precedes the perceived conscious awareness of an act of free will.The physical entity or otherwise of consciousness etc. is neither here nor there as its constitution is governed by patterns/laws just as anything else is. It has an initial nature and form just as all things do. Choice is based on 'information' and the history that has formed the chooser's make-up and consciousness to date, built on that initial nature. To chose means to also leave something out or 'untouched' and to do this requires some contrast between the objects so that one of them is seen as being more desirable than the others; In other words an appetition is created. Nothing acts in a void as you seem to be stipulating.
The reality is that human conscious awareness and free will are spiritual properties which have no physical explanation. The soul does whatever it takes to implement the chosen free will of human conscious awareness by initiating events which are not dependent on previous events, or even time itself. We are spiritual beings made in God's image. Just be thankful for the amazing gifts of our perception and free will.
Thinking isn't what freewill means. You are psychologically predisposed to think in certain ways on various issues based on your history of interactions.something by way of justification, something stronger than 'that is just how it seems'.I think of an action, and I do it.
This is not just how it seems.
It is how it is.
Free will exists in every human being.
What you describe is the cold calculated logic you would find in a computerised robot, which just needs information rather than conscious awareness to make a decision. Until you can define what conscious awareness is, you will not be able to fully define how our conscious awareness interacts with our decision making process.So you have never done something on impulse, as a reflect action, which you have regretted afterwards and felt almost surprised by your own actions - including thoughts that pop into your head?This is a very bold statement that contradicts human perception of reality.
Freewill does not existQuoteI assume it is based on the deterministic nature of events caused by other events, and the measured brain activity which precedes the perceived conscious awareness of an act of free will.The physical entity or otherwise of consciousness etc. is neither here nor there as its constitution is governed by patterns/laws just as anything else is. It has an initial nature and form just as all things do. Choice is based on 'information' and the history that has formed the chooser's make-up and consciousness to date, built on that initial nature. To chose means to also leave something out or 'untouched' and to do this requires some contrast between the objects so that one of them is seen as being more desirable than the others; In other words an appetition is created. Nothing acts in a void as you seem to be stipulating.
The reality is that human conscious awareness and free will are spiritual properties which have no physical explanation. The soul does whatever it takes to implement the chosen free will of human conscious awareness by initiating events which are not dependent on previous events, or even time itself. We are spiritual beings made in God's image. Just be thankful for the amazing gifts of our perception and free will.
What you are describing here are examples of reflex actions rather than free will choices.So you have never done something on impulse, as a reflect action, which you have regretted afterwards and felt almost surprised by your own actions - including thoughts that pop into your head?This is a very bold statement that contradicts human perception of reality.
Freewill does not exist
Our free will ability can be used to guide thoughts as well as actions. To suggest that my thoughts are all psychologically predisposed is a gross assumtion. You are not in a position to tell me what guides my thoughts. I can assure you that I have full control of my own thought processes. Do you really believe that creative writers and artists are all driven by psychologically based predisposition in their creativity?Thinking isn't what freewill means. You are psychologically predisposed to think in certain ways on various issues based on your history of interactions.something by way of justification, something stronger than 'that is just how it seems'.I think of an action, and I do it.
This is not just how it seems.
It is how it is.
Free will exists in every human being.
You cannot consciously choose which memory to recall.But my point is that you can consciously choose to recall a memory. It is the deliberate act to recall which is invoked by your consciousness. Allowing your sub conscious to choose which memory to invoke is not proof that the act of recall was also done by the subconscious.
Our free will ability can be used to guide thoughts as well as actions. To suggest that my thoughts are all psychologically predisposed is a gross assumtion. You are not in a position to tell me what guides my thoughts. I can assure you that I have full control of my own thought processes. Do you really believe that creative writers and artists are all driven by psychologically based predisposition in their creativity?
Perhaps I've missed a few of the more finicky nuances but that seems to cover most bases?Precisely, you have missed out nuances without which you have only given a partial picture.
Does that mean that - as you can't explain it in full - it shouldn't be believed in? (as per your post that started this particular line of discussion)No. The definition I gave is quite enough for anybody to recognise and therefore believe in.
Just as a linguistic aside, there is the whole idea that until recently the concept of blue as a colour is a linguistic lacuna; though there are arguments about kyanos in ancient Greek. This does not mean that they were doing with a 'more truthful' perception or a better understanding. Just that the concept did not feature though there were differing shades of other colours. Arguing that there is a tenseless language somehow mean that a concept of timelessness was understood linguistically or philosophically in what that makes sense or no temporal existence is not even wrong.That's not what I am arguing for though. See #69.
...Eh? What's "fearlessness existence"? It isn't your predictive text problem again, is it?
Before we get into that, can I just check that you again accept that the tenselessness of any language does not make any sense of a fearlessness existence? You seemed to have made a claim and when challenged on it just dropped it.
Sorry, this seems like a fairly basic attempt at shifting the burden of proof. I only know of existence as being temporally defined because the concept of existence as I understand it is it is a a claim about a thing either being or not being at any one time. I have no concept of a thing being where I cannot judges that in terms of time. If youh want to argue that such a concept works, you need to explain what you mean.What seems like that? Which post are you replying to?
There seems to be also a very weird conception of language here as if it is somehow prescriptive rather than descriptive.Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Is this one of your legal terms you sometimes use?
I use existence to talk about the state of something temporally, it seems to be how it is used in a descriptive sense. I cannot currently see what non temporal existence could possibly mean but it is being asserted.Have "objective reality". Why would that require time?
Interesting as the linguistic angle no doubt is I see we're no further forward in determining what God is made from ... ;)As I said at the start he is not made of anything. God is God. He is unlike anything else so how could his "form" be described? All we can say is he is "not this" or "not that".
That's getting rather off topic, but here you go.The 'no' answer requires a clarification of why you do believe. Pretty please :)No.So your belief in God is based on a book and your 'infallible' logic?Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?
So mere ad hoc assertion, then.Interesting as the linguistic angle no doubt is I see we're no further forward in determining what God is made from ... ;)As I said at the start he is not made of anything. God is God. He is unlike anything else so how could his "form" be described? All we can say is he is "not this" or "not that".
6) The Internal Witness of the Holy Spirit (Christians only)
When a person becomes a follower of Jesus Christ, they are “indwelt” by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit in us gives us an assurance that we are sons and daughters of God (Romans 8.15, 16 says, “For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’ The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.”). The Holy Spirit starts to change us, our desires and our actions.
Even if all the other arguments were not very strong, we would still have this witness from God himself.
Here's an even harder thought experiment for you. For the next five seconds do NOT think about white polar bears. I bet you can't do it, but that's another story.I chose to think about black polar bears instead!
We are in control, we do make choices, the illusory part is that we make conscious choices in real time.So are you now admitting that the conscious self does have some say in the decision making process, or is it merely a spectator upon something which has aready been decided?
We are in control, we do make choices, the illusory part is that we make conscious choices in real time.So are you now admitting that the conscious self does have some say in the decision making process, or is it merely a spectator upon something which has aready been decided?
We are in control, we do make choices, the illusory part is that we make conscious choices in real time.So are you now admitting that the conscious self does have some say in the decision making process, or is it merely a spectator upon something which has aready been decided?
Nope. How would you describe something which is unlike anything else?So mere ad hoc assertion, then.Interesting as the linguistic angle no doubt is I see we're no further forward in determining what God is made from ... ;)As I said at the start he is not made of anything. God is God. He is unlike anything else so how could his "form" be described? All we can say is he is "not this" or "not that".
"God is God" - this is what passes for useful definition in theology, is it?
Deary me.
You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of "circular reasoning". That the internal witness of the Holy Spirit cannot be demonstrated to others I readily accept, but that is not circular reasoning.
6) The Internal Witness of the Holy Spirit (Christians only)
When a person becomes a follower of Jesus Christ, they are “indwelt” by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit in us gives us an assurance that we are sons and daughters of God (Romans 8.15, 16 says, “For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’ The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.”). The Holy Spirit starts to change us, our desires and our actions.
Even if all the other arguments were not very strong, we would still have this witness from God himself.
Thanks for that Al - the next time I need a quick and easy example to beautifully illustrate the concept of circular reasoning/question begging I'll have that ready. Cheers.
Yest, it is a cut and paste job. It is something I wrote out some time back.
(P.S. You do know that your unfeasibly long post - a cut and paste job I assume - is absolutely groaning with logical fallacies and horrendous non-arguments which have been skinned, boned, gutted and given a decent burial a million times before, don't you? Maybe not ...).
How would you describe something which is unlike anything else?
Right that's that problem solved then ("what constitutes the form of God?").How would you describe something which is unlike anything else?
No intelligent person would try! If it is unlike anything else then you have no words to describe it with ... it is completely indescribable.
Right that's that problem solved then ("what constitutes the form of God?").How would you describe something which is unlike anything else?
No intelligent person would try! If it is unlike anything else then you have no words to describe it with ... it is completely indescribable.
But God made Himself known to us by becoming one of us.Right that's that problem solved then ("what constitutes the form of God?").How would you describe something which is unlike anything else?
No intelligent person would try! If it is unlike anything else then you have no words to describe it with ... it is completely indescribable.
Since "God" is indescribable, it follows that we can know nothing about it nor its wishes, and yet many people insist that we do.
But God made Himself known to us by becoming one of us.Right that's that problem solved then ("what constitutes the form of God?").How would you describe something which is unlike anything else?
No intelligent person would try! If it is unlike anything else then you have no words to describe it with ... it is completely indescribable.
Since "God" is indescribable, it follows that we can know nothing about it nor its wishes, and yet many people insist that we do.
Who has said that God is indescribable? Not I. The OP was about "what constitutes the form of God" or, less accurately, "what he is made of".Right that's that problem solved then ("what constitutes the form of God?").How would you describe something which is unlike anything else?
No intelligent person would try! If it is unlike anything else then you have no words to describe it with ... it is completely indescribable.
Since "God" is indescribable, it follows that we can know nothing about it nor its wishes, and yet many people insist that we do.
What's that got to do with it?But God made Himself known to us by becoming one of us.Right that's that problem solved then ("what constitutes the form of God?").How would you describe something which is unlike anything else?
No intelligent person would try! If it is unlike anything else then you have no words to describe it with ... it is completely indescribable.
Since "God" is indescribable, it follows that we can know nothing about it nor its wishes, and yet many people insist that we do.
So you believe! And even supposing it to be true, why can't believers all agree on his qualities and his wishes? It is quite obvious from all these forums that they don't.
OK, Alien and Alan,Good man, Mr. James.
I accept that you believe you know something about "God" because of Jesus.
You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of "circular reasoning". That the internal witness of the Holy Spirit cannot be demonstrated to others I readily accept, but that is not circular reasoning.No I haven't misunderstood it at all. Employing an argument in which the the thing yet to be proven is contained within the premises is question-begging/circular reasoning/petitio principii if you prefer. As you have done in trying to use "Even if all the other arguments were not very strong, we would still have this witness from God himself" as an argument for the existence of God. God is the thing yet to be demonstrated to exist - you can't assume the existence of God when trying to marshal an argument for God. Capisce?
If I were to tell you that I have a rubber band on my desk near my keyboard, that is something which is true, but is something I cannot demonstrate to you (particularly since I have now moved it off), yet in your view that would be "circular reasoning".No it wouldn't. It's clear that out of the two of us, I'm not the one who misunderstands circular reasoning.
Yest, it is a cut and paste job. It is something I wrote out some time back.Without even bothering to take any cognisance of all the counter-arguments that shoot down your woeful claims, evidently.
Oh and if I want fancy language like "absolutely groaning with logical fallacies and horrendous non-arguments which have been skinned, boned, gutted and given a decent burial a million times before", I'll have a word with Nearly Sane.I'm sorry that some pretty ordinary, basic English was a problem to you.
The key word being 'believe,' of course.Why? Belief in itself is neutral. Whether it is worth anything depends on whether that belief is correct.
Absolutely bang on.The key word being 'believe,' of course.Why? Belief in itself is neutral. Whether it is worth anything depends on whether that belief is correct.
It means your #110 doesn't say much.Absolutely bang on.The key word being 'believe,' of course.Why? Belief in itself is neutral. Whether it is worth anything depends on whether that belief is correct.
So ... ?
No, you have indeed misunderstood. If God demonstrates his existence to someone through something other than an argument for his existence, then that is not a circular argument. I am not seeing to demonstrate to you that God exists. What I wrote was that if God gives us a witness to himself, even if we can't demonstrate it to others, that is sufficient reason for us to believe. That's why I wrote that this bit was for Christians (in #92). It was not meant to be a means of convincing others of God's existence. Maybe I didn't put that very clearly.You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of "circular reasoning". That the internal witness of the Holy Spirit cannot be demonstrated to others I readily accept, but that is not circular reasoning.No I haven't misunderstood it at all. Employing an argument in which the the thing yet to be proven is contained within the premises is question-begging/circular reasoning/petitio principii if you prefer. As you have done in trying to use "Even if all the other arguments were not very strong, we would still have this witness from God himself" as an argument for the existence of God. God is the thing yet to be demonstrated to exist - you can't assume the existence of God when trying to marshal an argument for God. Capisce?
You were arguing, if I have understood you correctly, that my inability to demonstrate something to you that I know to be correct is circular reasoning. See the bit in bold at the top.QuoteIf I were to tell you that I have a rubber band on my desk near my keyboard, that is something which is true, but is something I cannot demonstrate to you (particularly since I have now moved it off), yet in your view that would be "circular reasoning".No it wouldn't. It's clear that out of the two of us, I'm not the one who misunderstands circular reasoning.
Nope, "pretty ordinary, basic English" is not a problem for me. If you would like to do a test with me to see who is better at understanding pretty ordinary, basic English, I'd be happy to give it a go. As it is ""absolutely groaning with logical fallacies and horrendous non-arguments which have been skinned, boned, gutted and given a decent burial a million times before" is very pretty language, claims much and demonstrates nothing.QuoteYest, it is a cut and paste job. It is something I wrote out some time back.Without even bothering to take any cognisance of all the counter-arguments that shoot down your woeful claims, evidently.QuoteOh and if I want fancy language like "absolutely groaning with logical fallacies and horrendous non-arguments which have been skinned, boned, gutted and given a decent burial a million times before", I'll have a word with Nearly Sane.I'm sorry that some pretty ordinary, basic English was a problem to you.
No, you have indeed misunderstood. If God demonstrates his existence to someone through something other than an argument for his existence, then that is not a circular argument.Quite right. It isn't.
Employing an argument in which the the thing yet to be proven is contained within the premises is question-begging/circular reasoning/petitio principii if you prefer. As you have done in trying to use "Even if all the other arguments were not very strong, we would still have this witness from God himself" as an argument for the existence of God. God is the thing yet to be demonstrated to exist - you can't assume the existence of God when trying to marshal an argument for God.... which is what you did in section 6 of #92 already referred to.
I am not seeing to demonstrate to you that God exists.
What I wrote was that if God gives us a witness to himself, even if we can't demonstrate it to others, that is sufficient reason for us to believe.Except that it isn't. This is still more circular reasoning, in that it assumes the very thing (God) that the argument seeks to demonstrate (God giving a witness to himself). I'm trying, and I fully admit failing, to see how I can possibly make this any clearer and simpler than I have already tried to make it. To believe that God has given you a witness to himself requires that you already have a prior belief that there is a God in the first place to give a witness to himself. God has to be the starting point, the first assumption - the presupposition if you will - before you accept the conclusion (God has given a witness to himself) as valid. This is an unevidenced, unsupported, in fact if you're a non-cognitivist like me an undefined assumption. Atheists see no reason, no rationale, no justification for making that assumption. In that sense atheism is the null hypothesis, the default, the application of Occam's Razor to the God hypothesis: the basic ground state so long as God remains unevidenced (and, again for the non-cognitivists, undefined).
That's why I wrote that this bit was for Christians (in #92). It was not meant to be a means of convincing others of God's existence. Maybe I didn't put that very clearly.You didn't. Why would it only be for Christians? This strikes me as mounting an argument for the belief in something aimed specifically at people who already believe in that something. What, exactly, is the point of that? Yes, yes, yes, I know that the old phrase preaching to the choir is the first, most obvious, perhaps even cliched recourse here, but it absolutely fits this case.
If I meet my wife, but cannot demonstrate to you that she exists, that is not a circular argument.Correct. It isn't. But then that isn't what I said, either about your wife or your rubber band collection.
As it is ""absolutely groaning with logical fallacies and horrendous non-arguments which have been skinned, boned, gutted and given a decent burial a million times before" is very pretty language, claims much and demonstrates nothing.It claims that you are either ignorant of or know but choose not to engage with the multifarious points and arguments, put forward by an embarrassment of riches of philosophers, scientists and other thinkers down the ages, which either rebut or refute the arguments you marshalled in #92. Your #92 demonstrates this.
We may be arguing past each other here. Jack Knave asked why I believed in the existence of God.No, you have indeed misunderstood. If God demonstrates his existence to someone through something other than an argument for his existence, then that is not a circular argument.Quite right. It isn't.
What is a circular argument is what I already stated, to wit:QuoteEmploying an argument in which the the thing yet to be proven is contained within the premises is question-begging/circular reasoning/petitio principii if you prefer. As you have done in trying to use "Even if all the other arguments were not very strong, we would still have this witness from God himself" as an argument for the existence of God. God is the thing yet to be demonstrated to exist - you can't assume the existence of God when trying to marshal an argument for God.... which is what you did in section 6 of #92 already referred to.QuoteI am not seeing to demonstrate to you that God exists.
... a comment which is, to say the very least, rather hollow given that you have not only written/compiled but posted here (presumably so that others can read it - otherwise, why?) a meretricious 3,000+ word essay on reasons why somebody should believe in God.
This is incorrect. If I have no prior belief in the existence of David Beckham, but then David Beckham turns up on my doorstep and I therefore start to believe that David Beckham exists, that is not circular reasoning.QuoteWhat I wrote was that if God gives us a witness to himself, even if we can't demonstrate it to others, that is sufficient reason for us to believe.Except that it isn't. This is still more circular reasoning, in that it assumes the very thing (God) that the argument seeks to demonstrate (God giving a witness to himself). I'm trying, and I fully admit failing, to see how I can possibly make this any clearer and simpler than I have already tried to make it. To believe that God has given you a witness to himself requires that you already have a prior belief that there is a God in the first place to give a witness to himself. God has to be the starting point, the first assumption - the presupposition if you will - before you accept the conclusion (God has given a witness to himself) as valid. This is an unevidenced, unsupported, in fact if you're a non-cognitivist like me an undefined assumption. Atheists see no reason, no rationale, no justification for making that assumption.
I agree I could be wrong, but my mistake would not be circular reasoning which is what you are arguing.
Furthermore, your determination that God has given a witness to himself could, for a multitude of differing but related reasons, be entirely mistaken. And, while we're about it, for all manner of reasons - principally those bearing upon human psychology - is vastly more likely to be so.
Actually, it is. At least that was what I intended.QuoteThat's why I wrote that this bit was for Christians (in #92). It was not meant to be a means of convincing others of God's existence. Maybe I didn't put that very clearly.You didn't. Why would it only be for Christians? This strikes me as mounting an argument for the belief in something aimed specifically at people who already believe in that something. What, exactly, is the point of that? Yes, yes, yes, I know that the old phrase preaching to the choir is the first, most obvious, perhaps even cliched recourse here, but it absolutely fits this case.QuoteIf I meet my wife, but cannot demonstrate to you that she exists, that is not a circular argument.Correct. It isn't. But then that isn't what I said, either about your wife or your rubber band collection.
Did you get that from Nearly Sane or did you make that up yourself? You could take over from Stephen Fry if he ever quits QI (that's a complement, by the way).QuoteAs it is ""absolutely groaning with logical fallacies and horrendous non-arguments which have been skinned, boned, gutted and given a decent burial a million times before" is very pretty language, claims much and demonstrates nothing.It claims that you are either ignorant of or know but choose not to engage with the multifarious points and arguments, put forward by an embarrassment of riches of philosophers, scientists and other thinkers down the ages, which either rebut or refute the arguments you marshalled in #92. Your #92 demonstrates this.
This is incorrect. If I have no prior belief in the existence of David Beckham, but then David Beckham turns up on my doorstep and I therefore start to believe that David Beckham exists, that is not circular reasoning.How do you know that it is Mr. Beckham on your doorstep?
Did you get that from Nearly Sane or did you make that up yourself? You could take over from Stephen Fry if he ever quits QI (that's a complement, by the way).Thank you very much. No, not from Nearly Sane - all my own work (ignoring for the nonce all the philosophers and scientists and other generally smart-bottomed types I've ever read ...).
I agree that most of the work done by the human brain is done without our conscious awareness being in control, but our awareness does have manual override over certain functions, such as breathing - which enables our ability to speak.
Conscious mind does have some part to play in certain kinds of decision making, the illusion we are all under is that our conscious mind is in control .....
Just returning to the question of whether free will events occur in real time. I was a fan of the group Cream, with Ginger Baker on drums, Eric Clapton on guitar and Jack Bruce on bass. I have several of their live recordings, in which they would improvise on their instruments for as long as 30 minutes on some tracks. To improvise, they would need to be able to interact with their fellow musicians in real time using their power of free will to play what their conscious awareness inspires them to do. This will also be true for all improvised Jazz. There is no doubt in my mind that our conscious awareness can do whatever is needed to induce free will actions in real time. We (our soul) control our actions of free will - not deteministic chemical reactions.
I would happily join in on my Fender Strat, but my Peavey amp has died a death. :(
Now, I've got my telecaster ready and plugged in (and I have too!), so lets do a Blues in G and stick strictly to the pentatonic - I'll count you in - a one, two, three, four - I can't hear you!
I agree that most of the work done by the human brain is done without our conscious awareness being in control, but our awareness does have manual override over certain functions, such as breathing - which enables our ability to speak.
Conscious mind does have some part to play in certain kinds of decision making, the illusion we are all under is that our conscious mind is in control .....
Just returning to the question of whether free will events occur in real time. I was a fan of the group Cream, with Ginger Baker on drums, Eric Clapton on guitar and Jack Bruce on bass. I have several of their live recordings, in which they would improvise on their instruments for as long as 30 minutes on some tracks. To improvise, they would need to be able to interact with their fellow musicians in real time using their power of free will to play what their conscious awareness inspires them to do. This will also be true for all improvised Jazz. There is no doubt in my mind that our conscious awareness can do whatever is needed to induce free will actions in real time. We (our soul) control our actions of free will - not deterministic chemical reactions.
This act still requires a motivation, an initial reason for doing it, and in turn reflects one's nature.You cannot consciously choose which memory to recall.But my point is that you can consciously choose to recall a memory. It is the deliberate act to recall which is invoked by your consciousness. Allowing your sub conscious to choose which memory to invoke is not proof that the act of recall was also done by the subconscious.
I have no idea what FIFY means. Thank you Shaker for that.In my opinion, Freewill does not exist, so that nips that one in the bud. Also, your idea requires the unqualified element that you name as God. Empirical evidence required.FIFY, Jack.
We know what love is from experience and we (should) keep it within those bounds. Though we subjectively experience it in our own way we can also find some common ground, intuitively, with our fellow human being about its nature and meaning.Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?OK, Shakes, define 'love'.
Again definitions are neither here not there. It is a given that consciousness, in fact all things, has to have a nature of some sort; this would be an a priori state as it is predicated by the unconscious, our psyche.What you describe is the cold calculated logic you would find in a computerised robot, which just needs information rather than conscious awareness to make a decision. Until you can define what conscious awareness is, you will not be able to fully define how our conscious awareness interacts with our decision making process.So you have never done something on impulse, as a reflect action, which you have regretted afterwards and felt almost surprised by your own actions - including thoughts that pop into your head?This is a very bold statement that contradicts human perception of reality.
Freewill does not existQuoteI assume it is based on the deterministic nature of events caused by other events, and the measured brain activity which precedes the perceived conscious awareness of an act of free will.The physical entity or otherwise of consciousness etc. is neither here nor there as its constitution is governed by patterns/laws just as anything else is. It has an initial nature and form just as all things do. Choice is based on 'information' and the history that has formed the chooser's make-up and consciousness to date, built on that initial nature. To chose means to also leave something out or 'untouched' and to do this requires some contrast between the objects so that one of them is seen as being more desirable than the others; In other words an appetition is created. Nothing acts in a void as you seem to be stipulating.
The reality is that human conscious awareness and free will are spiritual properties which have no physical explanation. The soul does whatever it takes to implement the chosen free will of human conscious awareness by initiating events which are not dependent on previous events, or even time itself. We are spiritual beings made in God's image. Just be thankful for the amazing gifts of our perception and free will.
But that is one of the conditions of the freewill postulate that everything is freely chosen, nothing occurs by chance or involuntary actions. So you have just admitted that freewill does not exist - thank you.What you are describing here are examples of reflex actions rather than free will choices.So you have never done something on impulse, as a reflect action, which you have regretted afterwards and felt almost surprised by your own actions - including thoughts that pop into your head?This is a very bold statement that contradicts human perception of reality.
Freewill does not exist
Have you ever had a thought you were ashamed of that involuntary popped into your head?Our free will ability can be used to guide thoughts as well as actions. To suggest that my thoughts are all psychologically predisposed is a gross assumtion. You are not in a position to tell me what guides my thoughts. I can assure you that I have full control of my own thought processes. Do you really believe that creative writers and artists are all driven by psychologically based predisposition in their creativity?Thinking isn't what freewill means. You are psychologically predisposed to think in certain ways on various issues based on your history of interactions.something by way of justification, something stronger than 'that is just how it seems'.I think of an action, and I do it.
This is not just how it seems.
It is how it is.
Free will exists in every human being.
You do not seem to be able to differentiate between an automated reflex action and a deliberate conscious decision. Free will is used in the latter, not the former.QuoteWhat you are describing here are examples of reflex actions rather than free will choices.But that is one of the conditions of the freewill postulate that everything is freely chosen, nothing occurs by chance or involuntary actions. So you have just admitted that freewill does not exist - thank you.
Are you saying that you have no control of your thoughts?
Have you ever had a thought you were ashamed of that involuntary popped into your head?
Creativity is a function of the persons psychic make up, their nature. Things do not come out of nothing, not even thoughts; that would be absurd!!!
Creativity is a function of the persons psychic make up, their nature. Things do not come out of nothing, not even thoughts; that would be absurd!!!A person's background and built in personality can certainly play a part in what they choose to do, but on top of this is the element of conscious control, effectively giving human beings an element of manual override on what their predicted behaviour should be. Human behaviour is not merely complex - it is demonstrably unpredictable in many situations.
What is a 'built in personality' and how do you distinguish it from non-'built in personality'?Creativity is a function of the persons psychic make up, their nature. Things do not come out of nothing, not even thoughts; that would be absurd!!!A person's background and built in personality can certainly play a part in what they choose to do, but on top of this is the element of conscious control, effectively giving human beings an element of manual override on what their predicted behaviour should be. Human behaviour is not merely complex - it is demonstrably unpredictable in many situations.
Alan the AlienThat's getting rather off topic, but here you go.The 'no' answer requires a clarification of why you do believe. Pretty please :)No.So your belief in God is based on a book and your 'infallible' logic?Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?
Why should I believe in God?
It is often assumed, by Christians as well as non-Christians, that there are no concrete reasons for believing that God exists. Christianity has suffered from a reliance on feelings or “just having faith” for about a century. However, there are good reasons to believe in God’s existence.
Notes:
1) Believing in God is more than just believing he exists; it is trusting him, though to do that you need to believe he exists. Do you believe in Ed Milliband? Nick Clegg? David Cameron?
2) Such believing in God requires more than an intellectual assent, something more than just accepting evidence. Whether we put our trust in him is very much bound up with our response to him telling us we are sinners. Do we respond to that by accepting it or rejecting it?
3) None of the items below are an argument against biological evolution.
Six Reasons to Believe in God (for a Christian) and Five Reasons to Believe in God (for an atheist):
1) Argument from contingency (Leibnitz’s argument).
2) Kalam cosmological argument.
3) Argument from design.
4) Argument from objective morals.
5) The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
6) The internal witness of the Holy Spirit (Christians only).
These arguments are based on those put forward by Dr. William Lane Craig who has a really good website at www.reasonablefaith.org.
Please note that some of this may well be over your head. If so, please stick with it. Even if it does not all sink it, it may show you that there are some carefully thought out arguments that exist which some people understand and which they believe to give good reasons to believe God exists.
Stuff in grey boxes is heavy stuff
1) Argument from contingency (Leibnitz’s argument)
This is the most complicated argument we will be looking ........and everything else that followed
What, something different from Christians being aware through the Holy Spirit that they are sons and daughters of God? See #6. If you are wondering more about how I came to be a Christian then, very, very briefly it came about through a discussion group at university (Trinity College, Cambridge) where another non-Christian and I met up with a couple of Christians for a number of Wednesday(?) evenings for several weeks. I got to the point where it too more "faith" to believe the Christian God didn't exist than it did to believe he did exist. I got to the point where I had to do something about it even though I was not 100% certain about it all. As I've looked at stuff over the 37 years or so since then I have become ever more convinced intellectually. There is also the personal experience side.Alan the AlienThat's getting rather off topic, but here you go.The 'no' answer requires a clarification of why you do believe. Pretty please :)No.So your belief in God is based on a book and your 'infallible' logic?Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?
Why should I believe in God?
It is often assumed, by Christians as well as non-Christians, that there are no concrete reasons for believing that God exists. Christianity has suffered from a reliance on feelings or “just having faith” for about a century. However, there are good reasons to believe in God’s existence.
Notes:
1) Believing in God is more than just believing he exists; it is trusting him, though to do that you need to believe he exists. Do you believe in Ed Milliband? Nick Clegg? David Cameron?
2) Such believing in God requires more than an intellectual assent, something more than just accepting evidence. Whether we put our trust in him is very much bound up with our response to him telling us we are sinners. Do we respond to that by accepting it or rejecting it?
3) None of the items below are an argument against biological evolution.
Six Reasons to Believe in God (for a Christian) and Five Reasons to Believe in God (for an atheist):
1) Argument from contingency (Leibnitz’s argument).
2) Kalam cosmological argument.
3) Argument from design.
4) Argument from objective morals.
5) The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
6) The internal witness of the Holy Spirit (Christians only).
These arguments are based on those put forward by Dr. William Lane Craig who has a really good website at www.reasonablefaith.org.
Please note that some of this may well be over your head. If so, please stick with it. Even if it does not all sink it, it may show you that there are some carefully thought out arguments that exist which some people understand and which they believe to give good reasons to believe God exists.
Stuff in grey boxes is heavy stuff
1) Argument from contingency (Leibnitz’s argument)
This is the most complicated argument we will be looking ........and everything else that followed
Thank you for that but I expected something more personal to your life and circumstances but not necessarily intrinsically over revealing.
Apart from #5 which is about Jesus Christ? If he was raised from the dead then it points clearly to his claims about himself being true.
The problem with the philosophical stuff, which I understand, is that it only points to "Something" and not to God, let alone to your Christian God. This "Something" is just some nebulous unknown, no characteristics or predicates can be assigned to it. It is a total unknown. So all these argument are of no use to you for your specific situation as a Christian.
Just go with "God" as people generally use that term here in the UK. If you want finer detail, go with what Jesus claimed and what the NT says.
So your formal logical statement about God and the existence of the universe needs a clarification and definition of your use of the word God.
And just to point the flaw in it the claim that science says there's no explanation for the universe isn't true,Where did I claim "that science says there's no explanation for the universe"? I've looked back through my post and can't find it there.
scientists says they don't know. And they wouldn't link any statement to this with the concept or word God.That would be because, if they are standing in the role of scientists, then I agree they wouldn't say that. Science is methodologically naturalistic. It is not equipped to make statements about God.
Would you please explain that claim a bit further. Ta.
The Jesus stuff I have argued against before. Something so flimsy i.e. not being a personal eye witness to this makes it invalid.
There could thousands of reason why this came to be written down,So what. If one reason has, say a 12.5% chance of being correct, and another a 6.25% chance and another a 3.125% chance and so on, you can have an infinite number of reasons and still 75% confident that the accounts are true.
reason we can not even imagine - unknown unknowns and so forth.That applies to absolutely everything. You might not be real, but instead an emanation from the plant Org. Possibilities come cheap. What we need is probabilities.
Thanks. I accept it as meant the way you say. However, why do you think it is about emotions? I've not mentioned emotions and didn't intend to imply anything emotional, so would you explain why you think it is an emotional thing. Ta.
6. is about emotions. I don't mean this to be derogatory or dismissive as emotions provide use with value-judgements for us to live by and so on. But all this is about our psychology and being social animals.
That's fine. I'd better look at them again myself!
I'll look at the numbers thing, at the end, later.
Many thanks, Jack.
Alan, this bit about jazz improvisation is total bollocks. This is something I can do and one of the things that consciousness does in this act is to take a back stand in the proceeding. In fact my best playing comes when I'm pretty much on the 'outside' of what I'm doing and find myself in the position of a listener. I.e. trance like. In fact the more consciously I interfere with what is going on the worse it gets.
Conscious mind does have some part to play in certain kinds of decision making, the illusion we are all under is that our conscious mind is in control .....
Just returning to the question of whether free will events occur in real time. I was a fan of the group Cream, with Ginger Baker on drums, Eric Clapton on guitar and Jack Bruce on bass. I have several of their live recordings, in which they would improvise on their instruments for as long as 30 minutes on some tracks. To improvise, they would need to be able to interact with their fellow musicians in real time using their power of free will to play what their conscious awareness inspires them to do. This will also be true for all improvised Jazz. There is no doubt in my mind that our conscious awareness can do whatever is needed to induce free will actions in real time. We (our soul) control our actions of free will - not deterministic chemical reactions.
You don't seem to know what the implications of the nature of freewill mean, and that your consciousness and you have a specific character and disposition which makes you think in specific ways, which has been tempered by your history.You do not seem to be able to differentiate between an automated reflex action and a deliberate conscious decision. Free will is used in the latter, not the former.QuoteWhat you are describing here are examples of reflex actions rather than free will choices.But that is one of the conditions of the freewill postulate that everything is freely chosen, nothing occurs by chance or involuntary actions. So you have just admitted that freewill does not exist - thank you.
You don't understand the implications of what the term freewill means.Are you saying that you have no control of your thoughts?
Have you ever had a thought you were ashamed of that involuntary popped into your head?
Creativity is a function of the persons psychic make up, their nature. Things do not come out of nothing, not even thoughts; that would be absurd!!!
If you do have control, that is because you have free will.
You can only control what is in your 'tool box'. You seem to be implying you can do anything with you consciousness even think of things that you have never come across in your lifetime. The things in your 'tool box' are graded to those you like and those you don't. You will naturally gravity to those you like and be bias towards them. This negates your so called freewill.Creativity is a function of the persons psychic make up, their nature. Things do not come out of nothing, not even thoughts; that would be absurd!!!A person's background and built in personality can certainly play a part in what they choose to do, but on top of this is the element of conscious control, effectively giving human beings an element of manual override on what their predicted behaviour should be. Human behaviour is not merely complex - it is demonstrably unpredictable in many situations.
Are you saying that you have no control of your thoughts?
Have you ever had a thought you were ashamed of that involuntary popped into your head?
Creativity is a function of the persons psychic make up, their nature. Things do not come out of nothing, not even thoughts; that would be absurd!!!
If you do have control, that is because you have free will.
You seem to be making several assertions in order to prove to yourself that you do not make conscious decisions. There is no scientific definition of what a human thought is comprised of. All we can confirm is that some chemical activity can be detected in certain brain cells which might be related to the thought processes. It is still a big mystery how this brain cell activity can become percieved as conscious thought. And in another thread, Dryghton's Toe has quoted a reference which gives mathematical proof using quantum theory that conscious awareness can't be generated by atomic particles. If this is true, science may have come to a dead end in trying to define the spiritual properties of self awareness and free will.
No one can choose which thought to think next. In order to choose which thought to think next, you would have had to have already considered it, ie already thought about it, in order to be able to consciously choose whether to think it or not That is circular, it doesn't work like that. At inception, thoughts come to us out of deeper recesses of mind.
You seem to be making several assertions ...
You seem to be making several assertions in order to prove to yourself that you do not make conscious decisions. There is no scientific definition of what a human thought is comprised of. All we can confirm is that some chemical activity can be detected in certain brain cells which might be related to the thought processes. It is still a big mystery how this brain cell activity can become percieved as conscious thought. And in another thread, Dryghton's Toe has quoted a reference which gives mathematical proof using quantum theory that conscious awareness can't be generated by atomic particles. If this is true, science may have come to a dead end in trying to define the spiritual properties of self awareness and free will.
No one can choose which thought to think next. In order to choose which thought to think next, you would have had to have already considered it, ie already thought about it, in order to be able to consciously choose whether to think it or not That is circular, it doesn't work like that. At inception, thoughts come to us out of deeper recesses of mind.
Anyway, what's your favourite colour ?purple
Anyway, what's your favourite colour ?purple
I have always liked blue.
It may be impossible using the logic associated with a deterministic universe, but my concept of the reality of my existence goes well beyond the perceived limitations of our universe.
You don't need science to engage with this particular insight; all you need is a little honest self-reflection. We do not consciously choose our thoughts, that would imply that we think about a thought before we think it. You don't need an MRI scanner to reveal that - it is impossible on pure logic grounds.
I have always liked blue.
Me too! He's my secret love. Where is he , btw?
I have always liked blue.
Me too! He's my secret love. Where is he , btw?
I'll tell your partner on you! ;D
1] You can ignore this as we have covered this else where.1] What, something different from Christians being aware through the Holy Spirit that they are sons and daughters of God? See #6. If you are wondering more about how I came to be a Christian then, very, very briefly it came about through a discussion group at university (Trinity College, Cambridge) where another non-Christian and I met up with a couple of Christians for a number of Wednesday(?) evenings for several weeks. I got to the point where it too more "faith" to believe the Christian God didn't exist than it did to believe he did exist. I got to the point where I had to do something about it even though I was not 100% certain about it all. As I've looked at stuff over the 37 years or so since then I have become ever more convinced intellectually. There is also the personal experience side.Alan the AlienThat's getting rather off topic, but here you go.The 'no' answer requires a clarification of why you do believe. Pretty please :)No.So your belief in God is based on a book and your 'infallible' logic?Should I need to be able to define "what constitutes the form of God"? If so, why? God is not flesh and blood, atoms and molecules like us, but I don't have to be able to describe his "form". It would be great to be able to do so, but there is the fact that if I, of finite human mind, were able to fully describe him, he would not be truly God.God is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?
Why should I believe in God?
It is often assumed, by Christians as well as non-Christians, that there are no concrete reasons for believing that God exists. Christianity has suffered from a reliance on feelings or “just having faith” for about a century. However, there are good reasons to believe in God’s existence.
Notes:
1) Believing in God is more than just believing he exists; it is trusting him, though to do that you need to believe he exists. Do you believe in Ed Milliband? Nick Clegg? David Cameron?
2) Such believing in God requires more than an intellectual assent, something more than just accepting evidence. Whether we put our trust in him is very much bound up with our response to him telling us we are sinners. Do we respond to that by accepting it or rejecting it?
3) None of the items below are an argument against biological evolution.
Six Reasons to Believe in God (for a Christian) and Five Reasons to Believe in God (for an atheist):
1) Argument from contingency (Leibnitz’s argument).
2) Kalam cosmological argument.
3) Argument from design.
4) Argument from objective morals.
5) The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
6) The internal witness of the Holy Spirit (Christians only).
These arguments are based on those put forward by Dr. William Lane Craig who has a really good website at www.reasonablefaith.org.
Please note that some of this may well be over your head. If so, please stick with it. Even if it does not all sink it, it may show you that there are some carefully thought out arguments that exist which some people understand and which they believe to give good reasons to believe God exists.
Stuff in grey boxes is heavy stuff
1) Argument from contingency (Leibnitz’s argument)
This is the most complicated argument we will be looking ........and everything else that followed
Thank you for that but I expected something more personal to your life and circumstances but not necessarily intrinsically over revealing.Quote2] Apart from #5 which is about Jesus Christ? If he was raised from the dead then it points clearly to his claims about himself being true.
The problem with the philosophical stuff, which I understand, is that it only points to "Something" and not to God, let alone to your Christian God. This "Something" is just some nebulous unknown, no characteristics or predicates can be assigned to it. It is a total unknown. So all these argument are of no use to you for your specific situation as a Christian.Quote
So your formal logical statement about God and the existence of the universe needs a clarification and definition of your use of the word God.
3] Just go with "God" as people generally use that term here in the UK. If you want finer detail, go with what Jesus claimed and what the NT says.QuoteAnd just to point the flaw in it the claim that science says there's no explanation for the universe isn't true,
4] Where did I claim "that science says there's no explanation for the universe"? I've looked back through my post and can't find it there.Quotescientists says they don't know. And they wouldn't link any statement to this with the concept or word God.
5] That would be because, if they are standing in the role of scientists, then I agree they wouldn't say that. Science is methodologically naturalistic. It is not equipped to make statements about God.Quote
The Jesus stuff I have argued against before. Something so flimsy i.e. not being a personal eye witness to this makes it invalid.
6] Would you please explain that claim a bit further. Ta.QuoteThere could thousands of reason why this came to be written down,
7] So what. If one reason has, say a 12.5% chance of being correct, and another a 6.25% chance and another a 3.125% chance and so on, you can have an infinite number of reasons and still 75% confident that the accounts are true.Quotereason we can not even imagine - unknown unknowns and so forth.
8] That applies to absolutely everything. You might not be real, but instead an emanation from the plant Org. Possibilities come cheap. What we need is probabilities.Quote
6. is about emotions. I don't mean this to be derogatory or dismissive as emotions provide use with value-judgements for us to live by and so on. But all this is about our psychology and being social animals.
9] Thanks. I accept it as meant the way you say. However, why do you think it is about emotions? I've not mentioned emotions and didn't intend to imply anything emotional, so would you explain why you think it is an emotional thing. Ta.Quote
I'll look at the numbers thing, at the end, later.
Many thanks, Jack.
10] That's fine. I'd better look at them again myself!
Mine is Richard Dawkins.I have always liked blue.
Me too! He's my secret love. Where is he , btw?
Mine is Richard Dawkins.
Anyway, what's your favourite colour ?purple
Anyway, what's your favourite colour ?purple
Anyway, what's your favourite colour ?purple
Nah, just kiddin'
The point about favourite colour is that in a free will scenario you would be able to choose which colour you prefer. In saying purple you are expressing something about your nature but we do not have the freedom to choose our nature. Every choice we make is an expression of our nature and we are tied to that. It makes no sense to claim to be able to prefer something that is not your preference, that is just as circular as you claiming that you can think a thought before you thought it, or you got out of bed in the morning before you got out of bed.
We do have an immense amount of freedom but not total complete freedom. It's truer to life to think in terms of degrees of freedom, thus a potato plant has little freedom, it cannot get up and go for a walk, but a sparrow has more freedom than a potato and chimpanzee has more freedom than a sparrow and a human has more freedom than a chimp. We feel as if we have total freedom because the number of options that we can envisage at any moment is arguably near infinite, but that says nothing about the mechanisms by which we decide on one course of action out of the multitude available to us. We make decisions courtesy of flesh and blood biology, through a system of weighted neural networks. Don't know if you've ever done any neural network programming, its quite different to traditional linear programming, but it is still at the end of the day a methodology that takes inputs and delivers an output, an output that is an appropriate function of its inputs. There would be no point in a system that delivered total freedom, in which the outputs are unrelated to the inputs. We are tied such that our responses are appropriate to our needs. If you are faced with an out of control car hurtling your way, appropriate responses might be to leap to the left or leap to the right, but there would be no advantage to us in having the freedom to decide to start baking some fudge brownies, or plan an insurrection against the monarchy. (Total) free will would be a disaster for any species that evolved it. It would he headed for extinction in no time at all. What we do have, is something far far better, we make choices within the constraints of our nature, that is a good thing, it keeps us safe, whilst having the feeling of total freedom, which inspires us, motivates us, and keeps us happy.
The point that you are missing, Torri, is that no matter what method you favour to arrive at your conclusion, we can always override it and do the opposite.
That is free will.
The point that you are missing, Torri, is that no matter what method you favour to arrive at your conclusion, we can always override it and do the opposite.
That is free will.
I'll take that as evidence that you still haven't quite got theism out of your hair yet, Len. A theist like Alan will talk like that because he believes in a soul which can override the brain. But as an atheist, you know that here is no such thing, no separate entity living inside you that can override your brain. You are your brain, and to claim that you can override yourself is a meaningless claim.
The fault in your argument Torridon is that you talk of the brain as some kind of monolith.The point that you are missing, Torri, is that no matter what method you favour to arrive at your conclusion, we can always override it and do the opposite.
That is free will.
I'll take that as evidence that you still haven't quite got theism out of your hair yet, Len. A theist like Alan will talk like that because he believes in a soul which can override the brain. But as an atheist, you know that here is no such thing, no separate entity living inside you that can override your brain. You are your brain, and to claim that you can override yourself is a meaningless claim.
The point that you are missing, Torri, is that no matter what method you favour to arrive at your conclusion, we can always override it and do the opposite.
That is free will.
I'll take that as evidence that you still haven't quite got theism out of your hair yet, Len. A theist like Alan will talk like that because he believes in a soul which can override the brain. But as an atheist, you know that here is no such thing, no separate entity living inside you that can override your brain. You are your brain, and to claim that you can override yourself is a meaningless claim.
The point that you are missing, Torri, is that no matter what method you favour to arrive at your conclusion, we can always override it and do the opposite.
That is free will.
I'll take that as evidence that you still haven't quite got theism out of your hair yet, Len. A theist like Alan will talk like that because he believes in a soul which can override the brain. But as an atheist, you know that here is no such thing, no separate entity living inside you that can override your brain. You are your brain, and to claim that you can override yourself is a meaningless claim.
What the hell does "separate entity" mean, as if the soul was some kind of foreign body?
What the hell does "separate entity" mean, as if the soul was some kind of foreign body?If you believe in a conscious, personal afterlife - as I assume you do - then surely you are by definition a believer in a separable soul: stuck to the body during life, separated at the point of death to go off who knows where to do who knows what.
I'll take that as evidence that you still haven't quite got theism out of your hair yet, Len. A theist like Alan will talk like that because he believes in a soul which can override the brain. But as an atheist, you know that here is no such thing, no separate entity living inside you that can override your brain. You are your brain, and to claim that you can override yourself is a meaningless claim.
I am not "overriding myself", Torri, whatever that means. As you rightly say, myself is my brain. I am just pointing out that I (my brain), is quite capable of free will, and can choose to do what my common sense tells me to do, or behave in an entirely different manner.
The point about favourite colour is that in a free will scenario you would be able to choose which colour you prefer. In saying purple you are expressing something about your nature but we do not have the freedom to choose our nature. Every choice we make is an expression of our nature and we are tied to that. It makes no sense to claim to be able to prefer something that is not your preference, that is just as circular as you claiming that you can think a thought before you thought it, or you got out of bed in the morning before you got out of bed.The real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong. Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it. And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.
We do have an immense amount of freedom but not total complete freedom. It's truer to life to think in terms of degrees of freedom, thus a potato plant has little freedom, it cannot get up and go for a walk, but a sparrow has more freedom than a potato and chimpanzee has more freedom than a sparrow and a human has more freedom than a chimp. We feel as if we have total freedom because the number of options that we can envisage at any moment is arguably near infinite, but that says nothing about the mechanisms by which we decide on one course of action out of the multitude available to us. We make decisions courtesy of flesh and blood biology, through a system of weighted neural networks. Don't know if you've ever done any neural network programming, its quite different to traditional linear programming, but it is still at the end of the day a methodology that takes inputs and delivers an output, an output that is an appropriate function of its inputs. There would be no point in a system that delivered total freedom, in which the outputs are unrelated to the inputs. We are tied such that our responses are appropriate to our needs. If you are faced with an out of control car hurtling your way, appropriate responses might be to leap to the left or leap to the right, but there would be no advantage to us in having the freedom to decide to start baking some fudge brownies, or plan an insurrection against the monarchy. (Total) free will would be a disaster for any species that evolved it. It would he headed for extinction in no time at all. What we do have, is something far far better, we make choices within the constraints of our nature, that is a good thing, it keeps us safe, whilst having the feeling of total freedom, which inspires us, motivates us, and keeps us happy.
As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the likeI do not believe that any human being is capable of fully explaining the mystery of their own existence. If you get ten philosophers to explain their existence, you will get ten different philosophies, because they are all prone to human error. The true meaning behind our existence can only be discovered in the revelations given to us by our Creator.
As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the likeI do not believe that any human being is capable of fully explaining the mystery of their own existence. If you get ten philosophers to explain their existence, you will get ten different philosophies, because they are all prone to human error. The true meaning behind our existence can only be discovered in the revelations given to us by our Creator.
As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the likeI do not believe that any human being is capable of fully explaining the mystery of their own existence. If you get ten philosophers to explain their existence, you will get ten different philosophies, because they are all prone to human error. The true meaning behind our existence can only be discovered in the revelations given to us by our Creator.
I tend to waffle on whereas you cut to the chase Floo but essentially we mean the same thing :D
The real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong. Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it. And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.
From Alan's post 170:All will come clear when you accept God's "Amazing Grace"QuoteThe real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong. Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it. And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.
Alan,
Am I to assume then that if a person acts according to their conscience(as you put it) then they are making a 'right' decision?
I ask because it should be obvious to you that many people can have conflicting ideas and hence make conflicting decisions on moral subjects.
For instance, I strongly support the 'Right to Die' movement. I have no guilt feelings attached to my position on this at all. Others strongly disagree with the 'Right to Die' movement. Presumably they feel their position is right, too.
So, whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?
Can I get another fortune cookie, this one was a bit shite?From Alan's post 170:All will come clear when you accept God's "Amazing Grace"QuoteThe real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong. Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it. And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.
Alan,
Am I to assume then that if a person acts according to their conscience(as you put it) then they are making a 'right' decision?
I ask because it should be obvious to you that many people can have conflicting ideas and hence make conflicting decisions on moral subjects.
For instance, I strongly support the 'Right to Die' movement. I have no guilt feelings attached to my position on this at all. Others strongly disagree with the 'Right to Die' movement. Presumably they feel their position is right, too.
So, whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?
From Alan's post 170:All will come clear when you accept God's "Amazing Grace"QuoteThe real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong. Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it. And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.
Alan,
Am I to assume then that if a person acts according to their conscience(as you put it) then they are making a 'right' decision?
I ask because it should be obvious to you that many people can have conflicting ideas and hence make conflicting decisions on moral subjects.
For instance, I strongly support the 'Right to Die' movement. I have no guilt feelings attached to my position on this at all. Others strongly disagree with the 'Right to Die' movement. Presumably they feel their position is right, too.
So, whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?
I have always liked blue.Bright blues like sky or deep blues?
From Alan's post 170:All will come clear when you accept God's "Amazing Grace"QuoteThe real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong. Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it. And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.
Alan,
Am I to assume then that if a person acts according to their conscience(as you put it) then they are making a 'right' decision?
I ask because it should be obvious to you that many people can have conflicting ideas and hence make conflicting decisions on moral subjects.
For instance, I strongly support the 'Right to Die' movement. I have no guilt feelings attached to my position on this at all. Others strongly disagree with the 'Right to Die' movement. Presumably they feel their position is right, too.
So, whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?
Jung wasn't a philosopher.As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the likeI do not believe that any human being is capable of fully explaining the mystery of their own existence. If you get ten philosophers to explain their existence, you will get ten different philosophies, because they are all prone to human error. The true meaning behind our existence can only be discovered in the revelations given to us by our Creator.
As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the likeI do not believe that any human being is capable of fully explaining the mystery of their own existence. If you get ten philosophers to explain their existence, you will get ten different philosophies, because they are all prone to human error. The true meaning behind our existence can only be discovered in the revelations given to us by our Creator.
It's far simpler, and to my mind vastly more likely to be the case, that human existence has no ultimate and over-arching meaning imposed from outside - why would it? There's nothing outside to do any imposing - and therefore it only makes sense to talk of meanings on the individual level which people create for themselves, if they have enough nous.
This seems to bother some people, for some reason. Perhaps because, as Sartre put it, it entails great responsibility and great effort, whereas some people would sooner have their meanings off-the-peg and ready-made, and you can't get an easier, lazier meaning of existence than the ones religions purport to provide. Pretty much all of the work is already done for you; you just have to turn off your critical faculties and bamboozle yourself into believing it's all true.
As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the likeI do not believe that any human being is capable of fully explaining the mystery of their own existence. If you get ten philosophers to explain their existence, you will get ten different philosophies, because they are all prone to human error. The true meaning behind our existence can only be discovered in the revelations given to us by our Creator.
The real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong. Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it.
And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.
We are all prone to the Devil's temptation to mis interpret God's word to suit our own self centred desires.
Theologians are not immune to being human either. Sunnis argue with Shias, Protesants disagree with Catholics, the CofE splits down the middle on issues around women bishops and gay clergy. If divine revelation was clear and consistent you might have a point, but ....
We are all prone to using our human "logic" to override what our deep conscience knows is right or wrong. I would assume that Hitler somehow managed to justify his actions with the disturbing logic of promoting a superior race. When we accept God's amazing grace, the Devil's scales of deception will fall away.From Alan's post 170:All will come clear when you accept God's "Amazing Grace"QuoteThe real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong. Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it. And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.
Alan,
Am I to assume then that if a person acts according to their conscience(as you put it) then they are making a 'right' decision?
I ask because it should be obvious to you that many people can have conflicting ideas and hence make conflicting decisions on moral subjects.
For instance, I strongly support the 'Right to Die' movement. I have no guilt feelings attached to my position on this at all. Others strongly disagree with the 'Right to Die' movement. Presumably they feel their position is right, too.
So, whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?
A particularly ineffective response, Alan. To me it simply illustrates your lack of ability to deal with the question. A bit of a cop out, I suggest. :)
You are correct in saying neural networks can input information, process it, then produce results. But no matter how complex the processing capability is, it is still just a collection of atomic particles reacting to the laws of nature. In physical terms it is not a single entity. The perception of what is being processed is not done from within. To perceive the image of a painting, you need an outside observer. You do not perceive the image from individual pixels. Perception of the collective activity of many brain cells can't be done by the brain cells themselves. It is perceived by something outside the brain. It is perceived by our spiritual soul, which can also intervene to produce conscious acts of free will.
The great sadness is that you do not realise just what a wonderful gift you have been given. You are so much more than a complex collection of matter driven by the soulless determinism of natural events. God has put you in control of an amazing machine through which you have the power to change the world. I hope and pray that one day you will come to realise the simple truth that God loves you, and He has given you control of your own destiny.
You are correct in saying neural networks can input information, process it, then produce results. But no matter how complex the processing capability is, it is still just a collection of atomic particles reacting to the laws of nature. In physical terms it is not a single entity. The perception of what is being processed is not done from within. To perceive the image of a painting, you need an outside observer. You do not perceive the image from individual pixels. Perception of the collective activity of many brain cells can't be done by the brain cells themselves. It is perceived by something outside the brain. It is perceived by our spiritual soul, which can also intervene to produce conscious acts of free will.
I think it is wrong to imagine a perceiver as a separate something; that is just a spurious complication, and an enormous one. A truer to life understanding, imo, is that the sense of self, our sense of personhood, is something that emerges from the complex interactions of lower levels. A 'spiritual soul' is just a piece of make-believe, one that nicely fits perhaps, but in the end explains nothing and subverts our appetite for real enquiry..
The great sadness is that you do not realise just what a wonderful gift you have been given. You are so much more than a complex collection of matter driven by the soulless determinism of natural events. God has put you in control of an amazing machine through which you have the power to change the world. I hope and pray that one day you will come to realise the simple truth that God loves you, and He has given you control of your own destiny.
You are correct in saying neural networks can input information, process it, then produce results. But no matter how complex the processing capability is, it is still just a collection of atomic particles reacting to the laws of nature. In physical terms it is not a single entity. The perception of what is being processed is not done from within. To perceive the image of a painting, you need an outside observer. You do not perceive the image from individual pixels. Perception of the collective activity of many brain cells can't be done by the brain cells themselves. It is perceived by something outside the brain. It is perceived by our spiritual soul, which can also intervene to produce conscious acts of free will.
I think it is wrong to imagine a perceiver as a separate something; that is just a spurious complication, and an enormous one. A truer to life understanding, imo, is that the sense of self, our sense of personhood, is something that emerges from the complex interactions of lower levels. A 'spiritual soul' is just a piece of make-believe, one that nicely fits perhaps, but in the end explains nothing and subverts our appetite for real enquiry..
Ah, but you never have any justification for your position Alan, all you give is assertions of your beliefs. I think you have been wrong footed by a set of appealing beliefs. To convince me, it needs something stronger than appeal, it needs compelling evidence.
The words "Amazing grace" come from John Newton's words to the hymn he composed when his scales of deception fell away, making him realise that slave trafficing was evil. His epiphany was brought about with the help of a group of Christians led by John Wilberforce.QuoteWe are all prone to using our human "logic" to override what our deep conscience knows is right or wrong. I would assume that Hitler somehow managed to justify his actions with the disturbing logic of promoting a superior race. When we accept God's amazing grace, the Devil's scales of deception will fall away.
Unfortunately it doesn't.
As history and the violent actions of Christians show.
They just use their own " disturbing logic" to justify it.
If you could just allow yourself to invite God into your life, you would have all the evidence you need. Once you discover God's love, there is no going back.QuoteThe great sadness is that you do not realise just what a wonderful gift you have been given. You are so much more than a complex collection of matter driven by the soulless determinism of natural events. God has put you in control of an amazing machine through which you have the power to change the world. I hope and pray that one day you will come to realise the simple truth that God loves you, and He has given you control of your own destiny.
Ah, but you never have any justification for your position Alan, all you give is assertions of your beliefs. I think you have been wrong footed by a set of appealing beliefs. To convince me, it needs something stronger than appeal, it needs compelling evidence.
If you could just allow yourself to invite God into your life, you would have all the evidence you need. Once you discover God's love, there is no going back.
This would be at the same time as some other Christians were supporting, defending and justifying slavery, yes?No, they were using their own distorted logic to override the true Christian message - Jesus commanded us to love one another.
The evidence of God's love is truly overwhelming. The sadness is that so many are blind to it.If you could just allow yourself to invite God into your life, you would have all the evidence you need. Once you discover God's love, there is no going back.
You obviously didn't read - or understand - torridon's post. He said he wants evidence, not the unevidenced assumption of the existence of the very thing he's seeking evidence for in the first place.
So are you stating as a matter of fact that these Christians didn't support, defend and justify slavery, Alan?I simply pointed out that it was a group of devout Christians who helped to bring an end to slavery, by following the command of Jesus that we should love one another.
This would be at the same time as some other Christians were supporting, defending and justifying slavery, yes?No, they were using their own distorted logic to override the true Christian message - Jesus commanded us to love one another.
So you say they weren't Christians, but they thought themselves to be and would have said so.So are you stating as a matter of fact that these Christians didn't support, defend and justify slavery, Alan?I simply pointed out that it was a group of devout Christians who helped to bring an end to slavery, by following the command of Jesus that we should love one another.
The "Christians" who supported slavery were not following the words of Jesus.
The evidence of God's love is truly overwhelming.
The sadness is that so many are blind to it.Who's sad? I'm not sad. You may well be. I could just easily, and with vastly more reason, say that I'm sad you're not a rational, clear-thinking individual free of the fatuities and twaddle that characterises your thinking. While there's certainly an element of that - I do feel sorry for religious people; as a meta-atheist I feel sure that at some deeper level they must know that they're fooling themselves with nonsense - as long as they don't intrude upon other people we just have to let them get on with it.
The evidence of God's love is truly overwhelming. The sadness is that so many are blind to it.If you could just allow yourself to invite God into your life, you would have all the evidence you need. Once you discover God's love, there is no going back.
You obviously didn't read - or understand - torridon's post. He said he wants evidence, not the unevidenced assumption of the existence of the very thing he's seeking evidence for in the first place.
Christians are not immune from sin!So you say they weren't Christians, but they thought themselves to be and would have said so.So are you stating as a matter of fact that these Christians didn't support, defend and justify slavery, Alan?I simply pointed out that it was a group of devout Christians who helped to bring an end to slavery, by following the command of Jesus that we should love one another.
The "Christians" who supported slavery were not following the words of Jesus.
So who's right?
Christians are not immune from sin!So you say they weren't Christians, but they thought themselves to be and would have said so.So are you stating as a matter of fact that these Christians didn't support, defend and justify slavery, Alan?I simply pointed out that it was a group of devout Christians who helped to bring an end to slavery, by following the command of Jesus that we should love one another.
The "Christians" who supported slavery were not following the words of Jesus.
So who's right?
Who's sad? I'm not sad. You may well be.It is God who is sad, because people still reject Him after He suffered and died to deliver us from evil.
I feel sure that at some deeper level they must know that they're fooling themselves with nonsenseYou can't get to any deeper level than having a personal relationship with God.
as long as they don't intrude upon other people we just have to let them get on with it.remember you are posting on a Christian thread ;)
I would never claim to be immune from sin, but I am called to witness to what I sincerely believe to be the truth.QuoteChristians are not immune from sin!
Including you?
Are you immune to deception?
Are you immune to misunderstanding?
ht
I would never claim to be immune from sin, but I am called to witness to what I sincerely believe to be the truth.QuoteChristians are not immune from sin!
Including you?
Are you immune to deception?
Are you immune to misunderstanding?
ht
I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deceptionI would never claim to be immune from sin, but I am called to witness to what I sincerely believe to be the truth.QuoteChristians are not immune from sin!
Including you?
Are you immune to deception?
Are you immune to misunderstanding?
ht
Good, that's one question that you answered. Just these two left:
Are you immune to deception?
Are you immune to misunderstanding?
ht
It is God who is sad, because people still reject Him after He suffered and died to deliver us from evil.
You can't get to any deeper level than having a personal relationship with God.All in the mind, Al.
I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception
If you could just allow yourself to invite God into your life, you would have all the evidence you need. Once you discover God's love, there is no going back.QuoteThe great sadness is that you do not realise just what a wonderful gift you have been given. You are so much more than a complex collection of matter driven by the soulless determinism of natural events. God has put you in control of an amazing machine through which you have the power to change the world. I hope and pray that one day you will come to realise the simple truth that God loves you, and He has given you control of your own destiny.
Ah, but you never have any justification for your position Alan, all you give is assertions of your beliefs. I think you have been wrong footed by a set of appealing beliefs. To convince me, it needs something stronger than appeal, it needs compelling evidence.
My relationship with God is the foundation of what I am. Take that away, and I am nothing - just a blob of matter falling through space and time with no significance whatsoever. The most fundamental reality that I perceive is that God brought me into existence and has made Himself known to me.I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception
How do you know this to be the case, Alan?
Not for the first time you've declared yourself to be incapable of error, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that there are now two mammals on the planet who claim to be infallible.
My relationship with God is the foundation of what I am. Take that away, and I am nothing - just a blob of matter falling through space and time with no significance whatsoever. The most fundamental reality that I perceive is that God brought me into existence and has made Himself known to me.I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception
How do you know this to be the case, Alan?
Not for the first time you've declared yourself to be incapable of error, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that there are now two mammals on the planet who claim to be infallible.
We are all prone to using our human "logic" to override what our deep conscience knows is right or wrong. I would assume that Hitler somehow managed to justify his actions with the disturbing logic of promoting a superior race. When we accept God's amazing grace, the Devil's scales of deception will fall away.From Alan's post 170:All will come clear when you accept God's "Amazing Grace"QuoteThe real freedom we have is to choose between what is right and what is wrong. Even though we are given a conscience to know the difference, we still have the capability to choose to do something which we know to be wrong, and our conscience can make us feel guilty for doing it. And when we choose to do something which we know to be right, we can get a feeling of elation.
Alan,
Am I to assume then that if a person acts according to their conscience(as you put it) then they are making a 'right' decision?
I ask because it should be obvious to you that many people can have conflicting ideas and hence make conflicting decisions on moral subjects.
For instance, I strongly support the 'Right to Die' movement. I have no guilt feelings attached to my position on this at all. Others strongly disagree with the 'Right to Die' movement. Presumably they feel their position is right, too.
So, whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?
A particularly ineffective response, Alan. To me it simply illustrates your lack of ability to deal with the question. A bit of a cop out, I suggest. :)
I believe that every human being has a natural awareness of what is good and what is bad, but they also have a natural tendency to override this awareness in order to indulge in some form of self centred activity. Being a Christian, I can identify the awareness of good and bad with our God given conscience, and our tendency to override it as the temptation of the Devil. The Devil will use any logical argument to tempt humans into doing what is against God's will.
Unfortunately Alan I am not talking about human logic here, I am talking about those inner feelings which you call 'conscience'. There are many people whose 'conscience' exhorts them to support a certain 'moral' stance which can be diametrically opposed to others, who would claim that their 'conscience' leads them to accept a different 'moral' stance, and with the same integrity. People of any or no religion fit into either of these categories.
Hence I would question the whole idea of 'conscience' being the arbiter of what is right/wrong in any objective sense at all.
And so, the honest question I asked you, and one which you have not provided any satisfactory answer to, is whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?
All I have received back from you are platitudes which simply reflect your conviction that by accepting your version of the Christian God this will make everything clear to me. This is simply an assertion that you are right, and other people with opposing convictions must be wrong. Alan, this is no way to construct an argument, especially to people like me, who are not party to your assertions.
Remember I have no belief in any God(or Devil) unless and until evidence accrues that any exist. Hence such a sentence as "When we accept God's amazing grace, the Devil's scales of deception will fall away." is of no particular use or meaning to me. If you really want to connect with others who do not share your beliefs, I would humbly suggest you attempt to engage cogently with arguments and questions rather than rely on simple assertions and a proselytising attitude.
Unless, of course, you are incapable of doing so...
I believe that every human being has a natural awareness of what is good and what is bad, but they also have a natural tendency to override this awareness in order to indulge in some form of self centred activity. Being a Christian, I can identify the awareness of good and bad with our God given conscience, and our tendency to override it as the temptation of the Devil. The Devil will use any logical argument to tempt humans into doing what is against God's will.
The obvious flaw with your argument here Mr S. is no one is declaring themselves incapable of error. You are mistaking a ''capable of error'' to an ''always in error''.I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception
How do you know this to be the case, Alan?
Not for the first time you've declared yourself to be incapable of error, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that there are now two mammals on the planet who claim to be infallible.
Sorry Vladdles, that won't wash. "Always in error" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. I don't know why you introduced the phrase, unless it was as a straw man and that wouldn't be like you, would it?The obvious flaw with your argument here Mr S. is no one is declaring themselves incapable of error. You are mistaking a ''capable of error'' to an ''always in error''.I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception
How do you know this to be the case, Alan?
Not for the first time you've declared yourself to be incapable of error, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that there are now two mammals on the planet who claim to be infallible.
I'm afraid that being an atheistiagnostiantheistautist has meant that a kind of self enforced ignorance has left you with a stunted anthropology & conception of morality. In other words it's not so much that you don't believe in in other moralities, it's that you only really have conception of one and here is where your argument collapses. You refer to ethology and evolutionary biology. You forget that ethology is only the study of behaviour without imposing any moral judgment and applying human morals to other species (Proto-morality) is anthropomorphism of proportions that would make even Walt Disney turn pale....Hi Ho.I believe that every human being has a natural awareness of what is good and what is bad, but they also have a natural tendency to override this awareness in order to indulge in some form of self centred activity. Being a Christian, I can identify the awareness of good and bad with our God given conscience, and our tendency to override it as the temptation of the Devil. The Devil will use any logical argument to tempt humans into doing what is against God's will.
No, Alan.
Just no.
The BIB makes all the difference. As a Christian you are committed to the idea that the you can "identify" "the awareness of good and bad with our God given conscience." I am an atheist-agnostic-antitheist; I believe that morality, matters of conscience, can be explained more simply, more elegantly, more accurately - there's that there old Occam's Razor again - by reference to our primate ancestry. This is a matter of scientific-evolutionary-historical record. It's not an opinion; it's not a belief; it's a matter of established science in the fields of evolutionary biology, ethology, anthropology ...
Mr Thorne was making the same leap as you were.Sorry Vladdles, that won't wash. "Always in error" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. I don't know why you introduced the phrase, unless it was as a straw man and that wouldn't be like you, would it?The obvious flaw with your argument here Mr S. is no one is declaring themselves incapable of error. You are mistaking a ''capable of error'' to an ''always in error''.I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception
How do you know this to be the case, Alan?
Not for the first time you've declared yourself to be incapable of error, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that there are now two mammals on the planet who claim to be infallible.
Alan has said - not just on this occasion but at least once in the past - that he is free from error, incapable of being deceived. His own words: "I may be prone to deception by other people, but my personal relationship with God is no deception."
Earlier on horsethorn asked him if he is incapable of deception. Alan replied that while he may be capable of being deceived by other people, he cannot be deceived about his relationship with what he thinks is his god. In other words he believes that he is infallible on this point and in this regard.
Try reading what he actually says rather than what you think I think he has said. It'll stand you in good stead.
I believe that every human being has a natural awareness of what is good and what is bad, but they also have a natural tendency to override this awareness in order to indulge in some form of self centred activity. Being a Christian, I can identify the awareness of good and bad with our God given conscience, and our tendency to override it as the temptation of the Devil. The Devil will use any logical argument to tempt humans into doing what is against God's will.
Alan, is your god given concience separate from you god given soul?I would assume that your conscience properties are hard wired into your brain cells through built in instinct and learnt experience.
We all have a conscience, ie feelings of guilt at doing what what is wrong or elation at doing what is right. But that sense of conscience is not an infallible to what is actually right, or wrong. Much of what we consider right and wrong is merely cultural mores. A man from south India would probably feel guilty about eating animal flesh whereas a man from northern India would probably have no such qualms. So, which man is being tempted by the Devil ? And how could you work that out ?I can only speak personally by stating that my own conscience is helped by teachings of the Christian bible and the Roman Catholic Church. I acknowledge that other faiths and cultures will have different teachings which may be derived from sources other than the word of God or the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Alan replied that while he may be capable of being deceived by other people, he cannot be deceived about his relationship with what he thinks is his god. In other words he believes that he is infallible on this point and in this regard.I would not say it was me that was infallible, but God's presence in me.
Alan replied that while he may be capable of being deceived by other people, he cannot be deceived about his relationship with what he thinks is his god. In other words he believes that he is infallible on this point and in this regard.I would not say it was me that was infallible, but God's presence in me.
If you continue to deny the existence of God you will have to say that I am deluded, but I can at least reassure you that I am not posessed by anything evil. God's presence in me certainly does not lead me into doing dreadful things - indeed it is quite the opposite. (You shall know them by their fruits)Alan replied that while he may be capable of being deceived by other people, he cannot be deceived about his relationship with what he thinks is his god. In other words he believes that he is infallible on this point and in this regard.I would not say it was me that was infallible, but God's presence in me.
Oh dear that is a very dangerous position to take, :o especially as there is no evidence a deity exists. The Biblical 'heroes' no doubt took a similar position, and did dreadful things in consequence. One should take responsibility for one's own actions not think they are being led by a deity the can't even prove exists!
If you continue to deny the existence of God you will have to say that I am deluded, but I can at least reassure you that I am not posessed by anything evil. God's presence in me certainly does not lead me into doing dreadful things - indeed it is quite the opposite. (You shall know them by their fruits)Alan replied that while he may be capable of being deceived by other people, he cannot be deceived about his relationship with what he thinks is his god. In other words he believes that he is infallible on this point and in this regard.I would not say it was me that was infallible, but God's presence in me.
Oh dear that is a very dangerous position to take, :o especially as there is no evidence a deity exists. The Biblical 'heroes' no doubt took a similar position, and did dreadful things in consequence. One should take responsibility for one's own actions not think they are being led by a deity the can't even prove exists!
If you continue to deny the existence of God you will have to say that I am deluded, but I can at least reassure you that I am not posessed by anything evil. God's presence in me certainly does not lead me into doing dreadful things - indeed it is quite the opposite. (You shall know them by their fruits)Alan replied that while he may be capable of being deceived by other people, he cannot be deceived about his relationship with what he thinks is his god. In other words he believes that he is infallible on this point and in this regard.I would not say it was me that was infallible, but God's presence in me.
Oh dear that is a very dangerous position to take, :o especially as there is no evidence a deity exists. The Biblical 'heroes' no doubt took a similar position, and did dreadful things in consequence. One should take responsibility for one's own actions not think they are being led by a deity the can't even prove exists!
I believe that every human being has a natural awareness of what is good and what is bad, but they also have a natural tendency to override this awareness in order to indulge in some form of self centred activity. Being a Christian, I can identify the awareness of good and bad with our God given conscience, and our tendency to override it as the temptation of the Devil. The Devil will use any logical argument to tempt humans into doing what is against God's will.
Unfortunately Alan I am not talking about human logic here, I am talking about those inner feelings which you call 'conscience'. There are many people whose 'conscience' exhorts them to support a certain 'moral' stance which can be diametrically opposed to others, who would claim that their 'conscience' leads them to accept a different 'moral' stance, and with the same integrity. People of any or no religion fit into either of these categories.
Hence I would question the whole idea of 'conscience' being the arbiter of what is right/wrong in any objective sense at all.
And so, the honest question I asked you, and one which you have not provided any satisfactory answer to, is whose conscience decides what is right and what is wrong?
All I have received back from you are platitudes which simply reflect your conviction that by accepting your version of the Christian God this will make everything clear to me. This is simply an assertion that you are right, and other people with opposing convictions must be wrong. Alan, this is no way to construct an argument, especially to people like me, who are not party to your assertions.
Remember I have no belief in any God(or Devil) unless and until evidence accrues that any exist. Hence such a sentence as "When we accept God's amazing grace, the Devil's scales of deception will fall away." is of no particular use or meaning to me. If you really want to connect with others who do not share your beliefs, I would humbly suggest you attempt to engage cogently with arguments and questions rather than rely on simple assertions and a proselytising attitude.
Unless, of course, you are incapable of doing so...
....which is exactly the type of thing that a deluded and/or possessed by evil, person would say!
If you continue to deny the existence of God you will have to say that I am deluded, but I can at least reassure you that I am not posessed by anything evil. God's presence in me certainly does not lead me into doing dreadful things - indeed it is quite the opposite. (You shall know them by their fruits)
....which is exactly the type of thing that a deluded and/or possessed by evil, person would say!
If you continue to deny the existence of God you will have to say that I am deluded, but I can at least reassure you that I am not posessed by anything evil. God's presence in me certainly does not lead me into doing dreadful things - indeed it is quite the opposite. (You shall know them by their fruits)
I opposed the idea of gay holy matrimony and the mind fascist antitheist insistence on it.If you continue to deny the existence of God you will have to say that I am deluded, but I can at least reassure you that I am not posessed by anything evil. God's presence in me certainly does not lead me into doing dreadful things - indeed it is quite the opposite. (You shall know them by their fruits)Alan replied that while he may be capable of being deceived by other people, he cannot be deceived about his relationship with what he thinks is his god. In other words he believes that he is infallible on this point and in this regard.I would not say it was me that was infallible, but God's presence in me.
Oh dear that is a very dangerous position to take, :o especially as there is no evidence a deity exists. The Biblical 'heroes' no doubt took a similar position, and did dreadful things in consequence. One should take responsibility for one's own actions not think they are being led by a deity the can't even prove exists!
Did you oppose gay marriage?
I opposed the idea of gay holy matrimony and the mind fascist antitheist insistence on it.If you continue to deny the existence of God you will have to say that I am deluded, but I can at least reassure you that I am not posessed by anything evil. God's presence in me certainly does not lead me into doing dreadful things - indeed it is quite the opposite. (You shall know them by their fruits)Alan replied that while he may be capable of being deceived by other people, he cannot be deceived about his relationship with what he thinks is his god. In other words he believes that he is infallible on this point and in this regard.I would not say it was me that was infallible, but God's presence in me.
Oh dear that is a very dangerous position to take, :o especially as there is no evidence a deity exists. The Biblical 'heroes' no doubt took a similar position, and did dreadful things in consequence. One should take responsibility for one's own actions not think they are being led by a deity the can't even prove exists!
Did you oppose gay marriage?
Since we live in a secular country and have done for longer than secularists would like to admit preferring the myth of labouring under the theist yolk, secularists have the right to any marriage they want.
Usual unthinking unself-critical brutish bollocks from Nearly Sane.I opposed the idea of gay holy matrimony and the mind fascist antitheist insistence on it.If you continue to deny the existence of God you will have to say that I am deluded, but I can at least reassure you that I am not posessed by anything evil. God's presence in me certainly does not lead me into doing dreadful things - indeed it is quite the opposite. (You shall know them by their fruits)Alan replied that while he may be capable of being deceived by other people, he cannot be deceived about his relationship with what he thinks is his god. In other words he believes that he is infallible on this point and in this regard.I would not say it was me that was infallible, but God's presence in me.
Oh dear that is a very dangerous position to take, :o especially as there is no evidence a deity exists. The Biblical 'heroes' no doubt took a similar position, and did dreadful things in consequence. One should take responsibility for one's own actions not think they are being led by a deity the can't even prove exists!
Did you oppose gay marriage?
Since we live in a secular country and have done for longer than secularists would like to admit preferring the myth of labouring under the theist yolk, secularists have the right to any marriage they want.
Ah supporting gay marriage is fascist. Mmm
Your abuse of the English language made nothing clear. You randomly replied to a very specific question to Alan and threw in the word fascist. Grow up, and stop with your random nonsense.Usual unthinking unself-critical brutish bollocks from Nearly Sane.I opposed the idea of gay holy matrimony and the mind fascist antitheist insistence on it.If you continue to deny the existence of God you will have to say that I am deluded, but I can at least reassure you that I am not posessed by anything evil. God's presence in me certainly does not lead me into doing dreadful things - indeed it is quite the opposite. (You shall know them by their fruits)Alan replied that while he may be capable of being deceived by other people, he cannot be deceived about his relationship with what he thinks is his god. In other words he believes that he is infallible on this point and in this regard.I would not say it was me that was infallible, but God's presence in me.
Oh dear that is a very dangerous position to take, :o especially as there is no evidence a deity exists. The Biblical 'heroes' no doubt took a similar position, and did dreadful things in consequence. One should take responsibility for one's own actions not think they are being led by a deity the can't even prove exists!
Did you oppose gay marriage?
Since we live in a secular country and have done for longer than secularists would like to admit preferring the myth of labouring under the theist yolk, secularists have the right to any marriage they want.
Ah supporting gay marriage is fascist. Mmm
I said An antitheist wanting enforced gay Holy matrimony was fascist....get your facts straight.
If you continue to deny the existence of God you will have to say that I am deluded
but I can at least reassure you that I am not posessed by anything evil.
God's presence in me certainly does not lead me into doing dreadful things - indeed it is quite the opposite. (You shall know them by their fruits)
I said An antitheist wanting enforced gay Holy matrimony was fascist....get your facts straight.
A question for Alan Burns. You have a voice in your head, which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child, as apparently happened to Abraham. Would you obey, tell the deity to get lost, or seek psychiatric attention?God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
But when you say that you support assisted dying, are you not using some form of logic to justify this stance?
Again, no logic involved, Alan. Plenty of people feel that their 'conscience' leads them to distinguish between right and wrong. And many of them, I suggest, might well take a different stand to yourself on matters of morality. I also suggest that many, if not most of these would also feel that their 'consciences' are not being overridden by their own self interest. Some of them may also, like you, believe that their 'consciences' are God given, and that the 'consciences' of certain other people, (perhaps ones like you), have been overridden by the temptation of the Devil.
Notice, Alan, I'm talking about people's feelings and beliefs here, not logic.
Did you oppose gay marriage?It is God who opposes Gay marriage
Did you oppose gay marriage?It is God who opposes Gay marriage
Did you oppose gay marriage?It is God who opposes Gay marriage
Did you oppose gay marriage?It is God who opposes Gay marriage
But when you say that you support assisted dying, are you not using some form of logic to justify this stance?
Again, no logic involved, Alan. Plenty of people feel that their 'conscience' leads them to distinguish between right and wrong. And many of them, I suggest, might well take a different stand to yourself on matters of morality. I also suggest that many, if not most of these would also feel that their 'consciences' are not being overridden by their own self interest. Some of them may also, like you, believe that their 'consciences' are God given, and that the 'consciences' of certain other people, (perhaps ones like you), have been overridden by the temptation of the Devil.
Notice, Alan, I'm talking about people's feelings and beliefs here, not logic.
Did you oppose gay marriage?It is God who opposes Gay marriage
Did you oppose gay marriage?It is God who opposes Gay marriage
A question for Alan Burns. You have a voice in your head, which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child, as apparently happened to Abraham. Would you obey, tell the deity to get lost, or seek psychiatric attention?God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
You seem to put a lot of emphasis on one story from the old testament to justify your idea of an evil deity. Jesus performs several miraculous healings on children in the New Testament, and I know He loves my children.
The passage you refer to illustrates the power of faith. And it also illustrates the obvious authenticity of the bible, because if it had been invented by humans to control our behaviour, there would be no inconvenient scriptures to brush under the carpet.
He is recorded as performing at least one of these 'healings' rather grudgingly. As for his love for your children, maybe he would want you to concede that you are a 'dog' first (meaning "not a Jew")? Perhaps this inconvenient scripture might be interpreted metaphorically, encouraging you to accept that you're just a worthless sinner, deserving of hell, but that might be interpreted as even more obnoxious....
I'm partly playing devil's advocate here, since my opinion of Jesus is actually rather high. But I don't like believers brushing inconvenient scriptures under the carpet by trying to play down their obvious implications.
I have no personal objection, but it is very presumptuous to assume that giving the union the title "marriage" that it will have God's blessing. The bible clearly states that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.Did you oppose gay marriage?It is God who opposes Gay marriage
If you did not 'know' gods opinion, what would yours be?
Yes Shaker and that's why people argue he is a tyrant :o :o :o.Did you oppose gay marriage?It is God who opposes Gay marriage
And yet he lost. Never mind!
The Bible clearly states a great many very very silly things.
Are you saying that you have no control of your thoughts?
Have you ever had a thought you were ashamed of that involuntary popped into your head?
Creativity is a function of the persons psychic make up, their nature. Things do not come out of nothing, not even thoughts; that would be absurd!!!
If you do have control, that is because you have free will.
Noone can choose which thought to think next. In order to choose which thought to think next, you would have had to have already considered it, ie already thought about it, in order to be able to consciously choose whether to think it or not That is circular, it doesn't work like that. At inception, thoughts come to us out of deeper recesses of mind.
Anyway, what's your favourite colour ?purple
Nah, just kiddin'
The point about favourite colour is that in a free will scenario you would be able to choose which colour you prefer. In saying purple you are expressing something about your nature but we do not have the freedom to choose our nature.
Are you saying that you have no control of your thoughts?
If you do have control, that is because you have free will.
Noone can choose which thought to think next. In order to choose which thought to think next, you would have had to have already considered it, ie already thought about it, in order to be able to consciously choose whether to think it or not That is circular, it doesn't work like that. At inception, thoughts come to us out of deeper recesses of mind.
I think sleep proves that the brain is a conscious awareness of our inner selves..
The Bible clearly states a great many very very silly things.
The passage you refer to is an excellent example of why Jesus had to come to confirm God's ways and set us on the right path. In the NT there is a clear example of Jesus replacing the barbaric act of stoning with forgiveness coupled with a command to "Go and sin no more".
God also clearly opposes the collection of firewood on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)
I presume then you must be in favour of the public stoning to death of such transgressors in your neighbourhood.
Unless of course you are the type who is happy to invoke the alleged authority of God when it coincides with your prejudices, and explain difficult teachings away when they don't.
Anyway, what's your favourite colour ?purple
Nah, just kiddin'
The point about favourite colour is that in a free will scenario you would be able to choose which colour you prefer. In saying purple you are expressing something about your nature but we do not have the freedom to choose our nature.
In choosing a colour it is merely a preference. Whilst the world around us may reflect in the colour chosen and so affect the choice. How would a blind person choose a colour? I would think their choice would be based on descriptions of that which the world calls lovely.
Whilst choice may affect personality.... I think being a believer affects our choices in life as does being an atheist...
The passage you refer to is an excellent example of why Jesus had to come to confirm God's ways and set us on the right path. In the NT there is a clear example of Jesus replacing the barbaric act of stoning with forgiveness coupled with a command to "Go and sin no more".
God also clearly opposes the collection of firewood on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)
I presume then you must be in favour of the public stoning to death of such transgressors in your neighbourhood.
Unless of course you are the type who is happy to invoke the alleged authority of God when it coincides with your prejudices, and explain difficult teachings away when they don't.
Moses and the OT jewish hirachy were not infallible. They made mistakes, as clearly indicated in the teachings of the New Testament.The passage you refer to is an excellent example of why Jesus had to come to confirm God's ways and set us on the right path. In the NT there is a clear example of Jesus replacing the barbaric act of stoning with forgiveness coupled with a command to "Go and sin no more".
God also clearly opposes the collection of firewood on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)
I presume then you must be in favour of the public stoning to death of such transgressors in your neighbourhood.
Unless of course you are the type who is happy to invoke the alleged authority of God when it coincides with your prejudices, and explain difficult teachings away when they don't.
The passage quoted does show God giving explicit direction to Moses in a criminal justice context and is written in a historical narrative style, not some poetic or allegorical style. If we are to believe Numbers as authentic histori-scriptural narrative revealing the mind of God then you have the conundrum that faced Marcion, but because he lost the argument, modern christianity is still to this day belaboured by its OT legacy.
The passage you refer to is an excellent example of why Jesus had to come to confirm God's ways and set us on the right path. In the NT there is a clear example of Jesus replacing the barbaric act of stoning with forgiveness coupled with a command to "Go and sin no more".
God also clearly opposes the collection of firewood on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)
I presume then you must be in favour of the public stoning to death of such transgressors in your neighbourhood.
Unless of course you are the type who is happy to invoke the alleged authority of God when it coincides with your prejudices, and explain difficult teachings away when they don't.
Just imagine what our lives would be like if Jesus had not come to save us. Western civilisation was founded on the teachings of the new testament. Without Him we would most likely have drifted into a dreadful self centred culture dominated by fear.
The passage you refer to is an excellent example of why Jesus had to come to confirm God's ways and set us on the right path. In the NT there is a clear example of Jesus replacing the barbaric act of stoning with forgiveness coupled with a command to "Go and sin no more".
God also clearly opposes the collection of firewood on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)
I presume then you must be in favour of the public stoning to death of such transgressors in your neighbourhood.
Unless of course you are the type who is happy to invoke the alleged authority of God when it coincides with your prejudices, and explain difficult teachings away when they don't.
Just imagine what our lives would be like if Jesus had not come to save us. Western civilisation was founded on the teachings of the new testament. Without Him we would most likely have drifted into a dreadful self centred culture dominated by fear.
You reckon? ::) Actually Christianity has been a force for a lot of nastiness throughout the centuries, if you read your history books!
Just imagine what our lives would be like if Jesus had not come to save us. Western civilisation was founded on the teachings of the new testament. Without Him we would most likely have drifted into a dreadful self centred culture dominated by fear.
You reckon? ::) Actually Christianity has been a force for a lot of nastiness throughout the centuries, if you read your history books!So which non-Christian culture would you prefer to have been born into?
Just imagine what our lives would be like if Jesus had not come to save us. Western civilisation was founded on the teachings of the new testament. Without Him we would most likely have drifted into a dreadful self centred culture dominated by fear.QuoteYou reckon? ::) Actually Christianity has been a force for a lot of nastiness throughout the centuries, if you read your history books!So which non-Christian culture would you prefer to have been born into?
Moses and the OT jewish hirachy were not infallible. They made mistakes, as clearly indicated in the teachings of the New Testament.The passage you refer to is an excellent example of why Jesus had to come to confirm God's ways and set us on the right path. In the NT there is a clear example of Jesus replacing the barbaric act of stoning with forgiveness coupled with a command to "Go and sin no more".
God also clearly opposes the collection of firewood on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36)
I presume then you must be in favour of the public stoning to death of such transgressors in your neighbourhood.
Unless of course you are the type who is happy to invoke the alleged authority of God when it coincides with your prejudices, and explain difficult teachings away when they don't.
The passage quoted does show God giving explicit direction to Moses in a criminal justice context and is written in a historical narrative style, not some poetic or allegorical style. If we are to believe Numbers as authentic histori-scriptural narrative revealing the mind of God then you have the conundrum that faced Marcion, but because he lost the argument, modern christianity is still to this day belaboured by its OT legacy.
... Here's my rule of thumb : the greater an idea's dependence on a single authority for its veracity, the likelier it is to be wrong.All other things being equal.
But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
Yes, all humans are fallible, including Moses and the other authors of the Jewish bible, including the writers of the New Testament gospels, including Paul, including Jesus, including Mohammed, including me, including you, including the Pope, even including Shaker. Oh, hang on a minute. Here's my rule of thumb : the greater an idea's dependence on a single authority for its veracity, the likelier it is to be wrong. I think it a healthy mindset to acknowledge one's limits.
He played a major part in the culture you were brought up in, so if you reject this as a 'non desirable favour', which non-Christian culture would you prefer?
Just imagine what our lives would be like if Jesus had not come to save us. Western civilisation was founded on the teachings of the new testament. Without Him we would most likely have drifted into a dreadful self centred culture dominated by fear.QuoteYou reckon? ::) Actually Christianity has been a force for a lot of nastiness throughout the centuries, if you read your history books!So which non-Christian culture would you prefer to have been born into?
I would much prefer it if I had NEVER heard of Jesus, the guy never did me any favours!
But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
Yes, all humans are fallible, including Moses and the other authors of the Jewish bible, including the writers of the New Testament gospels, including Paul, including Jesus, including Mohammed, including me, including you, including the Pope, even including Shaker. Oh, hang on a minute. Here's my rule of thumb : the greater an idea's dependence on a single authority for its veracity, the likelier it is to be wrong. I think it a healthy mindset to acknowledge one's limits.
"... and the Word became flesh and lived among us"
This is the whole basis of Christianity.
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian.
He played a major part in the culture you were brought up in, so if you reject this as a 'non desirable favour', which non-Christian culture would you prefer?
Just imagine what our lives would be like if Jesus had not come to save us. Western civilisation was founded on the teachings of the new testament. Without Him we would most likely have drifted into a dreadful self centred culture dominated by fear.QuoteYou reckon? ::) Actually Christianity has been a force for a lot of nastiness throughout the centuries, if you read your history books!So which non-Christian culture would you prefer to have been born into?
I would much prefer it if I had NEVER heard of Jesus, the guy never did me any favours!
But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
"... and the Word became flesh and lived among us"
This is the whole basis of Christianity.
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian.
Why would you believe this, and not every other myth?The other 'myths' are man made attempts at trying to know God.
The other 'myths' are man made attempts at trying to know God.
But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
"... and the Word became flesh and lived among us"
This is the whole basis of Christianity.
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian.
Why would you believe this, and not every other myth?
You could try North KoreaHe played a major part in the culture you were brought up in, so if you reject this as a 'non desirable favour', which non-Christian culture would you prefer?
Just imagine what our lives would be like if Jesus had not come to save us. Western civilisation was founded on the teachings of the new testament. Without Him we would most likely have drifted into a dreadful self centred culture dominated by fear.QuoteYou reckon? ::) Actually Christianity has been a force for a lot of nastiness throughout the centuries, if you read your history books!So which non-Christian culture would you prefer to have been born into?
I would much prefer it if I had NEVER heard of Jesus, the guy never did me any favours!
Jesus is long dead, it was his name which played a major part in Christian culture. I would prefer a secular culture if there is one!
But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
"... and the Word became flesh and lived among us"
This is the whole basis of Christianity.
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian.QuoteWhy would you believe this, and not every other myth?The other 'myths' are man made attempts at trying to know God.
God made Himself known to me through Jesus
You could try North KoreaHe played a major part in the culture you were brought up in, so if you reject this as a 'non desirable favour', which non-Christian culture would you prefer?
Just imagine what our lives would be like if Jesus had not come to save us. Western civilisation was founded on the teachings of the new testament. Without Him we would most likely have drifted into a dreadful self centred culture dominated by fear.QuoteYou reckon? ::) Actually Christianity has been a force for a lot of nastiness throughout the centuries, if you read your history books!So which non-Christian culture would you prefer to have been born into?
I would much prefer it if I had NEVER heard of Jesus, the guy never did me any favours!
Jesus is long dead, it was his name which played a major part in Christian culture. I would prefer a secular culture if there is one!
But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
Yes, all humans are fallible, including Moses and the other authors of the Jewish bible, including the writers of the New Testament gospels, including Paul, including Jesus, including Mohammed, including me, including you, including the Pope, even including Shaker. Oh, hang on a minute. Here's my rule of thumb : the greater an idea's dependence on a single authority for its veracity, the likelier it is to be wrong. I think it a healthy mindset to acknowledge one's limits.
"... and the Word became flesh and lived among us"
This is the whole basis of Christianity.
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian.
A myth can't make itself known
But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
"... and the Word became flesh and lived among us"
This is the whole basis of Christianity.
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian.QuoteWhy would you believe this, and not every other myth?The other 'myths' are man made attempts at trying to know God.
God made Himself known to me through Jesus
But that is just a myth!
As I say, why do you believe this myth but dismiss all others.
A myth can't make itself known
But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
"... and the Word became flesh and lived among us"
This is the whole basis of Christianity.
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian.QuoteWhy would you believe this, and not every other myth?The other 'myths' are man made attempts at trying to know God.
God made Himself known to me through Jesus
But that is just a myth!
As I say, why do you believe this myth but dismiss all others.
[The other 'myths' are man made attempts at trying to know God.
God made Himself known to me through Jesus
There is a difference between being known, (like I know of Islam) and something making itself known.
N ot sure what you mean. Others myths are known so you must be wrong.
You seem to just assume that the myth of Jesus is a fact, when it is not.
It is just a myth like all the others.
There is a difference between being known, (like I know of Islam) and something making itself known.
N ot sure what you mean. Others myths are known so you must be wrong.
You seem to just assume that the myth of Jesus is a fact, when it is not.
It is just a myth like all the others.
A fairly common theme amongst many Christians is their witness that it was God who came to them. They were not actively seeking God.OtherAll religions are generally adopted by personal choice or indoctrination.
Talking testes again Gordon?....or is it just ''The Life of Goron'' projected onto the human race.There is a difference between being known, (like I know of Islam) and something making itself known.
N ot sure what you mean. Others myths are known so you must be wrong.
You seem to just assume that the myth of Jesus is a fact, when it is not.
It is just a myth like all the others.
A fairly common theme amongst many Christians is their witness that it was God who came to them. They were not actively seeking God.OtherAll religions are generally adopted by personal choice or indoctrination.
Fify
Talking testes again Gordon?....or is it just ''The Life of Goron'' projected onto the human race.There is a difference between being known, (like I know of Islam) and something making itself known.
N ot sure what you mean. Others myths are known so you must be wrong.
You seem to just assume that the myth of Jesus is a fact, when it is not.
It is just a myth like all the others.
A fairly common theme amongst many Christians is their witness that it was God who came to them. They were not actively seeking God.OtherAll religions are generally adopted by personal choice or indoctrination.
Fify
Talking testes again Gordon?....or is it just ''The Life of Goron'' projected onto the human race.There is a difference between being known, (like I know of Islam) and something making itself known.
N ot sure what you mean. Others myths are known so you must be wrong.
You seem to just assume that the myth of Jesus is a fact, when it is not.
It is just a myth like all the others.
A fairly common theme amongst many Christians is their witness that it was God who came to them. They were not actively seeking God.OtherAll religions are generally adopted by personal choice or indoctrination.
Fify
I see your random sentence generator is working again, Vlad.
The other 'myths' are man made attempts at trying to know God.
God made Himself known to me through Jesus
There is a difference between being known, (like I know of Islam) and something making itself known.
N ot sure what you mean. Others myths are known so you must be wrong.
You seem to just assume that the myth of Jesus is a fact, when it is not.
It is just a myth like all the others.
A fairly common theme amongst many Christians is their witness that it was God who came to them. They were not actively seeking God.
There is a difference between being known, (like I know of Islam) and something making itself known.
A fairly common theme amongst many Christians is their witness that it was God who came to them. They were not actively seeking God.
Yep.
"Jesus sought me when a stranger, wandering from the fold of God.
He to rescue me from danger, interposed His precious blood."
There has to be a truer explanation for why some individuals have this feeling of being 'chosen'
There has to be a truer explanation for why some individuals have this feeling of being 'chosen'
There is! It's called auto-delusion. We all know we are different in some way or other, it's part of our individuality. Believing oneself to be 'chosen' is probably just an ego-bolstering form of being different. :)
True José Mourhino probably is the best manager there is.There has to be a truer explanation for why some individuals have this feeling of being 'chosen'
There is! It's called auto-delusion. We all know we are different in some way or other, it's part of our individuality. Believing oneself to be 'chosen' is probably just an ego-bolstering form of being different. :)
Not necessarily.
ippy
But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
Yes, all humans are fallible, including Moses and the other authors of the Jewish bible, including the writers of the New Testament gospels, including Paul, including Jesus, including Mohammed, including me, including you, including the Pope, even including Shaker. Oh, hang on a minute. Here's my rule of thumb : the greater an idea's dependence on a single authority for its veracity, the likelier it is to be wrong. I think it a healthy mindset to acknowledge one's limits.
"... and the Word became flesh and lived among us"
This is the whole basis of Christianity.
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian.
However he has obviously said something deep and existential which has got you rattled.But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
Yes, all humans are fallible, including Moses and the other authors of the Jewish bible, including the writers of the New Testament gospels, including Paul, including Jesus, including Mohammed, including me, including you, including the Pope, even including Shaker. Oh, hang on a minute. Here's my rule of thumb : the greater an idea's dependence on a single authority for its veracity, the likelier it is to be wrong. I think it a healthy mindset to acknowledge one's limits.
"... and the Word became flesh and lived among us"
This is the whole basis of Christianity.
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian.
There is not the slightest bit of verifiable evidence to suggest that Jesus was anything but human, with the same faults and failings as the rest of us.
However he has obviously said something deep and existential which has got you rattled.But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
Yes, all humans are fallible, including Moses and the other authors of the Jewish bible, including the writers of the New Testament gospels, including Paul, including Jesus, including Mohammed, including me, including you, including the Pope, even including Shaker. Oh, hang on a minute. Here's my rule of thumb : the greater an idea's dependence on a single authority for its veracity, the likelier it is to be wrong. I think it a healthy mindset to acknowledge one's limits.
"... and the Word became flesh and lived among us"
This is the whole basis of Christianity.
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian.
There is not the slightest bit of verifiable evidence to suggest that Jesus was anything but human, with the same faults and failings as the rest of us.
However he has obviously said something deep and existential which has got you rattled.But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
Yes, all humans are fallible, including Moses and the other authors of the Jewish bible, including the writers of the New Testament gospels, including Paul, including Jesus, including Mohammed, including me, including you, including the Pope, even including Shaker. Oh, hang on a minute. Here's my rule of thumb : the greater an idea's dependence on a single authority for its veracity, the likelier it is to be wrong. I think it a healthy mindset to acknowledge one's limits.
"... and the Word became flesh and lived among us"
This is the whole basis of Christianity.
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian.
There is not the slightest bit of verifiable evidence to suggest that Jesus was anything but human, with the same faults and failings as the rest of us.
However he has obviously said something deep and existential which has got you rattled.But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
Yes, all humans are fallible, including Moses and the other authors of the Jewish bible, including the writers of the New Testament gospels, including Paul, including Jesus, including Mohammed, including me, including you, including the Pope, even including Shaker. Oh, hang on a minute. Here's my rule of thumb : the greater an idea's dependence on a single authority for its veracity, the likelier it is to be wrong. I think it a healthy mindset to acknowledge one's limits.
"... and the Word became flesh and lived among us"
This is the whole basis of Christianity.
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian.
There is not the slightest bit of verifiable evidence to suggest that Jesus was anything but human, with the same faults and failings as the rest of us.
When people inevitably find the range of the Ippyesque world view (should have gone to specsavers) to be as stifling and limited as it is people will wantHowever he has obviously said something deep and existential which has got you rattled.But Jesus was not just human - He was God made man.
Yes, all humans are fallible, including Moses and the other authors of the Jewish bible, including the writers of the New Testament gospels, including Paul, including Jesus, including Mohammed, including me, including you, including the Pope, even including Shaker. Oh, hang on a minute. Here's my rule of thumb : the greater an idea's dependence on a single authority for its veracity, the likelier it is to be wrong. I think it a healthy mindset to acknowledge one's limits.
"... and the Word became flesh and lived among us"
This is the whole basis of Christianity.
If I did not believe this, I would not be a Christian.
There is not the slightest bit of verifiable evidence to suggest that Jesus was anything but human, with the same faults and failings as the rest of us.
He's not obviously said anything, of course he could have existed and if he existed he could have said these things but the fact that he ever existed hasn't been established.
The words in the manual that professes to have recorded his words might be deep and existential, for bronze age, little more than goat herders.
ippy
There is a difference between being known, (like I know of Islam) and something making itself known.
A fairly common theme amongst many Christians is their witness that it was God who came to them. They were not actively seeking God.
Yep.
"Jesus sought me when a stranger, wandering from the fold of God.
He to rescue me from danger, interposed His precious blood."
Doesn't make sense. That would be inconsistent with a benign god. An all loving god would not pick certain individuals to rescue whilst leaving others out in the cold. That would be a recipe for confusion. There has to be a truer explanation for why some individuals have this feeling of being 'chosen'
There is a difference between being known, (like I know of Islam) and something making itself known.
A fairly common theme amongst many Christians is their witness that it was God who came to them. They were not actively seeking God.
Yep.
"Jesus sought me when a stranger, wandering from the fold of God.
He to rescue me from danger, interposed His precious blood."
Doesn't make sense. That would be inconsistent with a benign god. An all loving god would not pick certain individuals to rescue whilst leaving others out in the cold. That would be a recipe for confusion. There has to be a truer explanation for why some individuals have this feeling of being 'chosen'
It might be inconsistent with what you want God to do, but pick up a Bible and you'll see that it's entirely consistent with they way God has acted down the ages: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, the nation of Israel, Rahab, Elijah.... and into the New Testament.
There is a difference between being known, (like I know of Islam) and something making itself known.
A fairly common theme amongst many Christians is their witness that it was God who came to them. They were not actively seeking God.
Yep.
"Jesus sought me when a stranger, wandering from the fold of God.
He to rescue me from danger, interposed His precious blood."
Doesn't make sense. That would be inconsistent with a benign god. An all loving god would not pick certain individuals to rescue whilst leaving others out in the cold. That would be a recipe for confusion. There has to be a truer explanation for why some individuals have this feeling of being 'chosen'
It might be inconsistent with what you want God to do, but pick up a Bible and you'll see that it's entirely consistent with they way God has acted down the ages: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, the nation of Israel, Rahab, Elijah.... and into the New Testament.
Throughout the Bible the deity depicted there has acted badly, if that is what you mean by consistent!
And bang goes your freewill, Alan!!! Which just shows what a load of crap you've been talking. You haven't a clue have you, but you're too stupid to realise it.A question for Alan Burns. You have a voice in your head, which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child, as apparently happened to Abraham. Would you obey, tell the deity to get lost, or seek psychiatric attention?God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
The passage you refer to illustrates the power of faith. And it also illustrates the obvious authenticity of the bible, because if it had been invented by humans to control our behaviour, there would be no inconvenient scriptures to brush under the carpet.
He is recorded as performing at least one of these 'healings' rather grudgingly. As for his love for your children, maybe he would want you to concede that you are a 'dog' first (meaning "not a Jew")? Perhaps this inconvenient scripture might be interpreted metaphorically, encouraging you to accept that you're just a worthless sinner, deserving of hell, but that might be interpreted as even more obnoxious....
I'm partly playing devil's advocate here, since my opinion of Jesus is actually rather high. But I don't like believers brushing inconvenient scriptures under the carpet by trying to play down their obvious implications.
God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
What is so special about Alan? The deity apparently encouraged the Biblical patriarchs to do very nasty things in its name. There are people today who claim to be Christians who bring the faith into disrepute by their words and deeds. One has only to read the posts of the loony tunes end of the Christian spectrum on this forum to see how unpleasant can be, yet apparently claiming some moral high ground because of their faith! >:(
Blunt, but accurate.Curt, and precise.
"Love thine enemies, etc, etc." Why do you always ignore Jesus' sayings?
That is a sad truth, but does not answer my question to Floo, who seems unable to provide an answer for herself. Poor Floo, and Leonard: what would they do without you to answer for them?"Love thine enemies, etc, etc." Why do you always ignore Jesus' sayings?
Why do so many Christians?
That is a sad truth, but does not answer my question to Floo, who seems unable to provide an answer for herself. Poor Floo, and Leonard: what would they do without you to answer for them?"Love thine enemies, etc, etc." Why do you always ignore Jesus' sayings?
Why do so many Christians?
Yes......attending to your own.That is a sad truth, but does not answer my question to Floo, who seems unable to provide an answer for herself. Poor Floo, and Leonard: what would they do without you to answer for them?"Love thine enemies, etc, etc." Why do you always ignore Jesus' sayings?
Why do so many Christians?
We ususally have more important things to attend to than your ravings.
for bronze age, little more than goat herders.
Doesn't make sense. That would be inconsistent with a benign god. An all loving god would not pick certain individuals to rescue whilst leaving others out in the cold. That would be a recipe for confusion. There has to be a truer explanation for why some individuals have this feeling of being 'chosen'
It might be inconsistent with what you want God to do, but pick up a Bible and you'll see that it's entirely consistent with they way God has acted down the ages: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, the nation of Israel, Rahab, Elijah.... and into the New Testament.
Yes......attending to your own.
for bronze age, little more than goat herders.
The Bible wasn't written in the bronze age, nor was it written by goat herders.
Yes......attending to your own.
I wish you would, my loony friend ... they would then make more sense. :)
But he would allow me to do evil of my own free will, but it would not be in His name.And bang goes your freewill, Alan!!! Which just shows what a load of crap you've been talking. You haven't a clue have you, but you're too stupid to realise it.A question for Alan Burns. You have a voice in your head, which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child, as apparently happened to Abraham. Would you obey, tell the deity to get lost, or seek psychiatric attention?God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
The Devil targets Christians."Love thine enemies, etc, etc." Why do you always ignore Jesus' sayings?
Why do so many Christians?
The Devil targets Christians."Love thine enemies, etc, etc." Why do you always ignore Jesus' sayings?
Why do so many Christians?
The Devil targets Christians."Love thine enemies, etc, etc." Why do you always ignore Jesus' sayings?
Why do so many Christians?
He doesn't have to target them, some are more than willing to do his bidding by bringing the faith into disrepute. A few of the Christian posters on this forum are doing a great job for their master, Satan, with their sick and unpleasant comments directed at folk who don't see it their way! >:(
But he would allow me to do evil of my own free will, but it would not be in His name.And bang goes your freewill, Alan!!! Which just shows what a load of crap you've been talking. You haven't a clue have you, but you're too stupid to realise it.A question for Alan Burns. You have a voice in your head, which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child, as apparently happened to Abraham. Would you obey, tell the deity to get lost, or seek psychiatric attention?God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
But he would allow me to do evil of my own free will, but it would not be in His name..A question for Alan Burns. You have a voice in your head, which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child, as apparently happened to Abraham. Would you obey, tell the deity to get lost, or seek psychiatric attention?God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
And bang goes your freewill, Alan!!! Which just shows what a load of crap you've been talking. You haven't a clue have you, but you're too stupid to realise it.
But he does allow other people to do evil deeds in his name?
http://gaycitynews.nyc/god-made-me-do-it-defense-in-2011-midtown-murder/
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/68545052/pawn-shop-murderaccused-afraid-his-children-would-be-killed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/god-told-me-to-do-it/
But he would allow me to do evil of my own free will, but it would not be in His name..A question for Alan Burns. You have a voice in your head, which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child, as apparently happened to Abraham. Would you obey, tell the deity to get lost, or seek psychiatric attention?God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
And bang goes your freewill, Alan!!! Which just shows what a load of crap you've been talking. You haven't a clue have you, but you're too stupid to realise it.
But he does allow other people to do evil deeds in his name?
http://gaycitynews.nyc/god-made-me-do-it-defense-in-2011-midtown-murder/
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/68545052/pawn-shop-murderaccused-afraid-his-children-would-be-killed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/god-told-me-to-do-it/
He doesn't allow them to; they just do
But he would allow me to do evil of my own free will, but it would not be in His name..A question for Alan Burns. You have a voice in your head, which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child, as apparently happened to Abraham. Would you obey, tell the deity to get lost, or seek psychiatric attention?God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
And bang goes your freewill, Alan!!! Which just shows what a load of crap you've been talking. You haven't a clue have you, but you're too stupid to realise it.
But he does allow other people to do evil deeds in his name?
http://gaycitynews.nyc/god-made-me-do-it-defense-in-2011-midtown-murder/
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/68545052/pawn-shop-murderaccused-afraid-his-children-would-be-killed
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/god-told-me-to-do-it/
He doesn't allow them to; they just do
If people want to do evil deeds in omnipotent God's name and he sits back and lets them get on with it, he is allowing them to do evil deeds. That is what "allowing them" means.
There is a difference between "allowing" them to do evil, and preventing them from following their own, malign, intentions.
We are what we are, all of us, and we are each responsible for our actions, not God.
If God stands over us and controls everything we do, then life is hardly worth living, making us little more than robots.
But he would allow me to do evil of my own free will, but it would not be in His name.And bang goes your freewill, Alan!!! Which just shows what a load of crap you've been talking. You haven't a clue have you, but you're too stupid to realise it.A question for Alan Burns. You have a voice in your head, which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child, as apparently happened to Abraham. Would you obey, tell the deity to get lost, or seek psychiatric attention?God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
People who do not know the true God may well mistakenly claim to do do things in His name. Indeed they may well be under the influence of the Devil.But he would allow me to do evil of my own free will, but it would not be in His name.And bang goes your freewill, Alan!!! Which just shows what a load of crap you've been talking. You haven't a clue have you, but you're too stupid to realise it.A question for Alan Burns. You have a voice in your head, which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child, as apparently happened to Abraham. Would you obey, tell the deity to get lost, or seek psychiatric attention?God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
Not sure that works.
Are you saying that, if you were to fly a jetliner into the French Alps because you hated humans he would allow that, but if you flew a jetliner into a New York skyscraper yelling 'God is Great' he would intervene to stop you ?
It is not necessary for "God" to control everything that is done, he just has to prevent people from doing bad things.
Contrary to what you say, life would be far more worth living if that were the case, and we would certainly not be 'little more than robots'. We would still be able to make our choices, but not bad ones. That would seem all to the good, and more like a loving father.
It is not necessary for "God" to control everything that is done, he just has to prevent people from doing bad things.
Contrary to what you say, life would be far more worth living if that were the case, and we would certainly not be 'little more than robots'. We would still be able to make our choices, but not bad ones. That would seem all to the good, and more like a loving father.
Len, if it was this easy, God would not have had to suffer and die in order to deliver us from evil.
I do not know all the answers, but I do know that God loves us and wants us all to join Him in heaven. This earth is a battleground between good and evil - we are not in Heaven yet, but God has opened up the gate for us.
It is not necessary for "God" to control everything that is done, he just has to prevent people from doing bad things.
Contrary to what you say, life would be far more worth living if that were the case, and we would certainly not be 'little more than robots'. We would still be able to make our choices, but not bad ones. That would seem all to the good, and more like a loving father.
Len, if it was this easy, God would not have had to suffer and die in order to deliver us from evil.
I do not know all the answers, but I do know that God loves us and wants us all to join Him in heaven. This earth is a battleground between good and evil - we are not in Heaven yet, but God has opened up the gate for us.
I have never used the words "all powerful" to describe God, because that would assume that Satan has no power. Do not underestimate the power of the Devil.
Are you trying to tell me that this all-powerful "God" you believe in was able to create the whole universe and the life in it, but he wasn't able to create humans without the power to do wrong, and that the only way he could do it was to go through all the paraphernalia of crucifying himself and then resurrecting? That doesn't sound very 'all-powerful' to me, Alan.
I have never used the words "all powerful" to describe God, because that would assume that Satan has no power. Do not underestimate the power of the Devil.
Are you trying to tell me that this all-powerful "God" you believe in was able to create the whole universe and the life in it, but he wasn't able to create humans without the power to do wrong, and that the only way he could do it was to go through all the paraphernalia of crucifying himself and then resurrecting? That doesn't sound very 'all-powerful' to me, Alan.
I have never used the words "all powerful" to describe God, because that would assume that Satan has no power. Do not underestimate the power of the Devil.
Are you trying to tell me that this all-powerful "God" you believe in was able to create the whole universe and the life in it, but he wasn't able to create humans without the power to do wrong, and that the only way he could do it was to go through all the paraphernalia of crucifying himself and then resurrecting? That doesn't sound very 'all-powerful' to me, Alan.
People who do not know the true God may well mistakenly claim to do do things in His name. Indeed they may well be under the influence of the Devil.But he would allow me to do evil of my own free will, but it would not be in His name.And bang goes your freewill, Alan!!! Which just shows what a load of crap you've been talking. You haven't a clue have you, but you're too stupid to realise it.A question for Alan Burns. You have a voice in your head, which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child, as apparently happened to Abraham. Would you obey, tell the deity to get lost, or seek psychiatric attention?God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
Not sure that works.
Are you saying that, if you were to fly a jetliner into the French Alps because you hated humans he would allow that, but if you flew a jetliner into a New York skyscraper yelling 'God is Great' he would intervene to stop you ?
What I am saying, from my own knowledge and experience of God, is that God would not allow me, as a true believer, to mistakenly do something in His name.
If I were to deliberately swap sides, then I could pretend to do something in His name, but I would be conscious that I was not really doing what God wants.
I hope this clarifies things.
I do not know, because I myself do not know everything there is to know.I have never used the words "all powerful" to describe God, because that would assume that Satan has no power. Do not underestimate the power of the Devil.
Are you trying to tell me that this all-powerful "God" you believe in was able to create the whole universe and the life in it, but he wasn't able to create humans without the power to do wrong, and that the only way he could do it was to go through all the paraphernalia of crucifying himself and then resurrecting? That doesn't sound very 'all-powerful' to me, Alan.
Is your god omniscient?
I have never used the words "all powerful" to describe God, because that would assume that Satan has no power. Do not underestimate the power of the Devil.
Are you trying to tell me that this all-powerful "God" you believe in was able to create the whole universe and the life in it, but he wasn't able to create humans without the power to do wrong, and that the only way he could do it was to go through all the paraphernalia of crucifying himself and then resurrecting? That doesn't sound very 'all-powerful' to me, Alan.
Never fear, Alan, both "God" and "the Devil" are powerless against my ability to reason. :)
By Jove, I think he's got itI do not know, because I myself do not know everything there is to know.I have never used the words "all powerful" to describe God, because that would assume that Satan has no power. Do not underestimate the power of the Devil.
Are you trying to tell me that this all-powerful "God" you believe in was able to create the whole universe and the life in it, but he wasn't able to create humans without the power to do wrong, and that the only way he could do it was to go through all the paraphernalia of crucifying himself and then resurrecting? That doesn't sound very 'all-powerful' to me, Alan.
Is your god omniscient?
I do not know, because I myself do not know everything there is to know.I have never used the words "all powerful" to describe God, because that would assume that Satan has no power. Do not underestimate the power of the Devil.
Are you trying to tell me that this all-powerful "God" you believe in was able to create the whole universe and the life in it, but he wasn't able to create humans without the power to do wrong, and that the only way he could do it was to go through all the paraphernalia of crucifying himself and then resurrecting? That doesn't sound very 'all-powerful' to me, Alan.
Is your god omniscient?
If God stands over us and controls everything we do, then life is hardly worth living, making us little more than robots.There's that bullshit false dichotomy again. Between allowing everybody to do anything they like (which is what your god seems to do) and controlling us like robots there's a significant continuum. He could just prevent all rapes, for instance. That would be a start.
What we do with our freedom to act is up to each individual, and how he sees life and morality, right and wrong.
;D ;D Seriously, though...
I admit I do not know everything there is to know, but I am certain that God has made Himself known to me through Jesus Christ. Nothing will ever take this away.QuoteIs your god omniscient?QuoteI do not know, because I myself do not know everything there is to know.QuoteI am glad you admit that, because none of us can possibly know all there is to know, more particularly if a deity actually exists.
I admit I do not know everything there is to know, but I am certain that God has made Himself known to me through Jesus Christ. Nothing will ever take this away.QuoteIs your god omniscient?QuoteI do not know, because I myself do not know everything there is to know.QuoteI am glad you admit that, because none of us can possibly know all there is to know, more particularly if a deity actually exists.
I do not know, because I myself do not know everything there is to know.I have never used the words "all powerful" to describe God, because that would assume that Satan has no power. Do not underestimate the power of the Devil.
Are you trying to tell me that this all-powerful "God" you believe in was able to create the whole universe and the life in it, but he wasn't able to create humans without the power to do wrong, and that the only way he could do it was to go through all the paraphernalia of crucifying himself and then resurrecting? That doesn't sound very 'all-powerful' to me, Alan.
Is your god omniscient?
I admit I do not know everything there is to know, but I am certain that God has made Himself known to me through Jesus Christ. Nothing will ever take this away.QuoteIs your god omniscient?QuoteI do not know, because I myself do not know everything there is to know.QuoteI am glad you admit that, because none of us can possibly know all there is to know, more particularly if a deity actually exists.
It was you Floo.
All I can say is keep trying
Well if the deity could make itself known to you in a way which makes you certain it exists, why couldn't the deity do me the same favour when I was a child and begging it to make its presence felt in my life? Either it didn't give a damn, or it doesn't exist, the latter seeming more credible to me!
All I can say is keep trying
Well if the deity could make itself known to you in a way which makes you certain it exists, why couldn't the deity do me the same favour when I was a child and begging it to make its presence felt in my life? Either it didn't give a damn, or it doesn't exist, the latter seeming more credible to me!
;D ;D Seriously, though...
I am serious in saying that I believe my ability to reason is impervious to attacks by gods and demons ... just as seriously as you believe your "God" exists.
Then that isn't freewill, if it was your will and choice to do evil in Gods name and It stopped you! You can't have 80% freewill, it is either all or nothing. This is something your argument has failed to appreciate that freewill means total freeness to choose without restriction and to be unhindered by any biases and conditions.But he would allow me to do evil of my own free will, but it would not be in His name.And bang goes your freewill, Alan!!! Which just shows what a load of crap you've been talking. You haven't a clue have you, but you're too stupid to realise it.A question for Alan Burns. You have a voice in your head, which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child, as apparently happened to Abraham. Would you obey, tell the deity to get lost, or seek psychiatric attention?God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
How would you know if the devil had got under your skin, Alan? You could be doing his work without even knowing it.The Devil targets Christians."Love thine enemies, etc, etc." Why do you always ignore Jesus' sayings?
Why do so many Christians?
Or, to put it another way: " My mind is closed totally;
... and could someone help me to understand why I am posting here?"
Or, to put it another way: " My mind is closed totally;
Nope, but yours is about "God".Quote... and could someone help me to understand why I am posting here?"
I need no help to know that. I post in order to stop you and other believers here corrupting minds that haven't yet been made up. :)
I am not corrupting anyone.
I believe people are able to make up their own minds, unlike you who would deny people the opportunity to think for themselves.
Please give me an example of how I corrupt anybody!
I am not corrupting anyone.
You corrupt the mind of anybody who hasn't decided about belief by talking about your "God" as if he is a fact. He isn't ... he's just a belief.QuoteI believe people are able to make up their own minds, unlike you who would deny people the opportunity to think for themselves.
I encourage everybody to think for themselves, and not simply listen to gullible people who have swallowed slavishly what imaginative religios wrote a long time ago.QuotePlease give me an example of how I corrupt anybody!
Every time you post telling us who your "God" is and what he wants us to do.
If you read what I said, once I have full knowledge of God I would be unable to consciously do something bad in His name unless I changed sides to to it deliberately against His will.
Then that isn't freewill, if it was your will and choice to do evil in Gods name and It stopped you! You can't have 80% freewill, it is either all or nothing.
Not sure that works.People who do not know the true God may well mistakenly claim to do do things in His name. Indeed they may well be under the influence of the Devil.
Are you saying that, if you were to fly a jetliner into the French Alps because you hated humans he would allow that, but if you flew a jetliner into a New York skyscraper yelling 'God is Great' he would intervene to stop you ?
What I am saying, from my own knowledge and experience of God, is that God would not allow me, as a true believer, to mistakenly do something in His name.
If I were to deliberately swap sides, then I could pretend to do something in His name, but I would be conscious that I was not really doing what God wants.
I hope this clarifies things.
The only references to God I make are when I talk of His love and desire for us to love one another, and forgive, etc. And you think that is a corrupting influence, do you?
What I am saying, from my own knowledge and experience of God, is that God would not allow me, as a true believer, to mistakenly do something in His name.
If I were to deliberately swap sides, then I could pretend to do something in His name, but I would be conscious that I was not really doing what God wants.
I hope this clarifies things.
A bit of clarification is needed here. There is a difference in discerning God's will and proclaiming that God has asked you personally to do something in His name. The former is not an exact science and is open to various forms of corruption and mis interpretation. The latter can only de done by a genuine Christian under God's influence, or someone who is totally deluded and under the influence of something evil.
Consider the split in the CofE over women clergy. Roughly half believe God favours the liberal stance, the other half believe the traditionalist view. In casting their votes on the matter, these people are expressing their view of what god wants. This is nothing to do with self interest, these are people split over a theological issue and they cannot all be correct. If what you claim were true, then God would intervene to correct christians who were expressing a mistaken witness to God's will.
You can't have 80% freewill, it is either all or nothing. This is something your argument has failed to appreciate that freewill means total freeness to choose without restriction and to be unhindered by any biases and conditions.Your logic is wrong. Many things can influence our decisions, but our conscious awareness can override these if we wish to do so. It only takes one act of conscious free will to show evidence for the human soul.
It only takes one act of conscious free will to show evidence for the human soul.
A bit of clarification is needed here. There is a difference in discerning God's will and proclaiming that God has asked you personally to do something in His name. The former is not an exact science and is open to various forms of corruption and mis interpretation. The latter can only de done by a genuine Christian under God's influence, or someone who is totally deluded and under the influence of something evil.
Consider the split in the CofE over women clergy. Roughly half believe God favours the liberal stance, the other half believe the traditionalist view. In casting their votes on the matter, these people are expressing their view of what god wants. This is nothing to do with self interest, these are people split over a theological issue and they cannot all be correct. If what you claim were true, then God would intervene to correct christians who were expressing a mistaken witness to God's will.
Just remember that this bit of discussion was started by Flo asking if I would kill one of my children if I felt certain that God was asking me to do it. It is not about discernment of God's will, but obeying His direct orders. As a Christian, I do not believe that God would allow me to mis interpret a direct order.
If you truly believed the deity had given you a direct order to kill one of your children, or anyone else for that matter, would you obey?You have chosen to ask a hypothetical question about a scenario that will never happen. God is not evil, and He will not ask me to do anything which is inherently evil - it is just not possible.
Science can't and I believe never will explain the human attributes of self awareness and free will. You, Len, are putting your faith in a future scientific revelation which might never happen. I am putting my faith in the God given revelation that it is my soul which gives me awareness of what is in my brain together with the capability to manipulate it.It only takes one act of conscious free will to show evidence for the human soul.
Not at all, Alan. One act of free will is evidence for free will, and nothing else. Attributing it to an invented "soul" doesn't wash.
Science can't and I believe never will explain the human attributes of self awareness and free will. You, Len, are putting your faith in a future scientific revelation which might never happen. I am putting my faith in the God given revelation that it is my soul which gives me awareness of what is in my brain together with the capability to manipulate it.It only takes one act of conscious free will to show evidence for the human soul.
Not at all, Alan. One act of free will is evidence for free will, and nothing else. Attributing it to an invented "soul" doesn't wash.
Science can't and I believe never will explain the human attributes of self awareness and free will.
You, Len, are putting your faith in a future scientific revelation which might never happen.
I am putting my faith in the God given revelation that it is my soul which gives me awareness of what is in my brain together with the capability to manipulate it.
Science can't and I believe never will explain the human attributes of self awareness and free will. You, Len, are putting your faith in a future scientific revelation which might never happen. I am putting my faith in the God given revelation that it is my soul which gives me awareness of what is in my brain together with the capability to manipulate it.It only takes one act of conscious free will to show evidence for the human soul.
Not at all, Alan. One act of free will is evidence for free will, and nothing else. Attributing it to an invented "soul" doesn't wash.
Len generally respects science but is in denial on this point - that we are flesh and blood creatures, subject to the (largely deterministic) laws of nature that govern flesh and blood. That we feel that our choices are free, is not much of an argument really.
Len generally respects science but is in denial on this point - that we are flesh and blood creatures, subject to the (largely deterministic) laws of nature that govern flesh and blood. That we feel that our choices are free, is not much of an argument really.
I don't deny that our choices depend a lot on our nature/nurture, but at the end of the day, it is undeniable that we can respond to the dictates of our nature/nurture ... or do the opposite.
For me that clearly demonstrates free will.
If you truly believed the deity had given you a direct order to kill one of your children, or anyone else for that matter, would you obey?You have chosen to ask a hypothetical question about a scenario that will never happen. God is not evil, and He will not ask me to do anything which is inherently evil - it is just not possible.
However, I have been asked to do something which I would never normally consider because I felt totally incapable - to lead the singing in a charismatic prayer group. In my youth I would attend the early morning Mass because I wanted to avoid the singing - I could not sing and I did not like to hear singing during Mass. When the opportunity arose to lead the singing in the prayer group I felt God prompting me to say "yes". Little did I know at the time that this decision would change my life - I discovered God's love for the first time, and I also met my future wife. :)
If you truly believed the deity had given you a direct order to kill one of your children, or anyone else for that matter, would you obey?You have chosen to ask a hypothetical question about a scenario that will never happen. God is not evil, and He will not ask me to do anything which is inherently evil - it is just not possible.
However, I have been asked to do something which I would never normally consider because I felt totally incapable - to lead the singing in a charismatic prayer group. In my youth I would attend the early morning Mass because I wanted to avoid the singing - I could not sing and I did not like to hear singing during Mass. When the opportunity arose to lead the singing in the prayer group I felt God prompting me to say "yes". Little did I know at the time that this decision would change my life - I discovered God's love for the first time, and I also met my future wife. :)
The deeds attributed to the deity featured in the Bible are evil!
If you truly believed the deity had given you a direct order to kill one of your children, or anyone else for that matter, would you obey?You have chosen to ask a hypothetical question about a scenario that will never happen. God is not evil, and He will not ask me to do anything which is inherently evil - it is just not possible.
However, I have been asked to do something which I would never normally consider because I felt totally incapable - to lead the singing in a charismatic prayer group. In my youth I would attend the early morning Mass because I wanted to avoid the singing - I could not sing and I did not like to hear singing during Mass. When the opportunity arose to lead the singing in the prayer group I felt God prompting me to say "yes". Little did I know at the time that this decision would change my life - I discovered God's love for the first time, and I also met my future wife. :)
The deeds attributed to the deity featured in the Bible are evil!
For the umpteenth time: How is the NT message of love and forgiveness "evil?" Why don't you answer?
All I can say is keep trying
Well if the deity could make itself known to you in a way which makes you certain it exists, why couldn't the deity do me the same favour when I was a child and begging it to make its presence felt in my life? Either it didn't give a damn, or it doesn't exist, the latter seeming more credible to me!
Assuming it exists, if it can't come through for a child who needed it, why should it bother to come through for an adult who doesn't?
;D ;D Seriously, though...
I am serious in saying that I believe my ability to reason is impervious to attacks by gods and demons ... just as seriously as you believe your "God" exists.
Or, to put it another way: " My mind is closed totally; and could someone help me to understand why I am posting here?"
No, no, BA. You really do misunderstand Floo's point - one of the best she's made ever. If God does not make himself known to us in the depth of suffering when we cry out to him, why on earth should we 'keep trying' to see if he puts in an appearance when times are better? I know that at the lowest time of my life (and I'm not talking about fleabites here) the deity declined to make himself known. As for the sufferings of a little child ("for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven", we are told), they can indeed seem unspeakable. I cannot see the point of anyone 'keeping trying' when they are met with a deafening silence. The next move is over to the supposed deity.....
If you truly believed the deity had given you a direct order to kill one of your children, or anyone else for that matter, would you obey?You have chosen to ask a hypothetical question about a scenario that will never happen. God is not evil, and He will not ask me to do anything which is inherently evil - it is just not possible.
However, I have been asked to do something which I would never normally consider because I felt totally incapable - to lead the singing in a charismatic prayer group. In my youth I would attend the early morning Mass because I wanted to avoid the singing - I could not sing and I did not like to hear singing during Mass. When the opportunity arose to lead the singing in the prayer group I felt God prompting me to say "yes". Little did I know at the time that this decision would change my life - I discovered God's love for the first time, and I also met my future wife. :)
The deeds attributed to the deity featured in the Bible are evil!
;D ;D Seriously, though...
I am serious in saying that I believe my ability to reason is impervious to attacks by gods and demons ... just as seriously as you believe your "God" exists.
Or, to put it another way: " My mind is closed totally; and could someone help me to understand why I am posting here?"
No, no, BA. You really do misunderstand Floo's point - one of the best she's made ever. If God does not make himself known to us in the depth of suffering when we cry out to him, why on earth should we 'keep trying' to see if he puts in an appearance when times are better? I know that at the lowest time of my life (and I'm not talking about fleabites here) the deity declined to make himself known. As for the sufferings of a little child ("for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven", we are told), they can indeed seem unspeakable. I cannot see the point of anyone 'keeping trying' when they are met with a deafening silence. The next move is over to the supposed deity.....
If you are being "ignored," then there is a reason. If you do not truly believe, then do not expect God to act as some kind of GP, there for your benefit, when you can offer no true belief and allegiance. We could all do with help in so many ways in our everyday lives; that doesn't mean that God has to do everything for you.
If you truly believed the deity had given you a direct order to kill one of your children, or anyone else for that matter, would you obey?You have chosen to ask a hypothetical question about a scenario that will never happen. God is not evil, and He will not ask me to do anything which is inherently evil - it is just not possible.
However, I have been asked to do something which I would never normally consider because I felt totally incapable - to lead the singing in a charismatic prayer group. In my youth I would attend the early morning Mass because I wanted to avoid the singing - I could not sing and I did not like to hear singing during Mass. When the opportunity arose to lead the singing in the prayer group I felt God prompting me to say "yes". Little did I know at the time that this decision would change my life - I discovered God's love for the first time, and I also met my future wife. :)
The deeds attributed to the deity featured in the Bible are evil!
I'm going to attempt to be a sort of moderate voice here, floo. In the early part of the Bible, the deeds of the deity certainly seem to be weighted down on the evil side. There are also deeds attributed to the deity which are good. Since all we know of these supposed 'deeds', and all we know of God's supposed 'goodness' are simply accounts written from the point of view of men (and some women), there is no reason to suppose that the deity is one thing or the other. Sometimes he appears good, sometimes bad. You cherry pick the bad, BA cherry picks the good - and in fact, since he rejects the whole of the Old Testament, he's halfway to your viewpoint in any case. And his view of the loving Jesus in the NT, though highly attractive, and supported by a fair number of scholars, in itself can only be upheld by strenuously rejecting various 'uncomfortable' texts, and explaining them away.
I wonder, is it possible to approach the Bible with out some kind of emotional involvement, in the attitude of objective scholarship? I certainly had a very emotional attitude to it in the (distant) past, but now I try to see it as an interesting collection of ancient texts, some of which can still move me, but without feeling any compunction to believe. I find the byways of scholarship about the Bible interesting, in the same way that some historians get enthused about the civilisations of the ancient Maya or the Hittites. But maybe I'm in a minority too.
One point I would make is that if you are able to approach the Bible without emotional involvement, then you are never going to effectively engage with it.
If you truly believed the deity had given you a direct order to kill one of your children, or anyone else for that matter, would you obey?You have chosen to ask a hypothetical question about a scenario that will never happen. God is not evil, and He will not ask me to do anything which is inherently evil - it is just not possible.
However, I have been asked to do something which I would never normally consider because I felt totally incapable - to lead the singing in a charismatic prayer group. In my youth I would attend the early morning Mass because I wanted to avoid the singing - I could not sing and I did not like to hear singing during Mass. When the opportunity arose to lead the singing in the prayer group I felt God prompting me to say "yes". Little did I know at the time that this decision would change my life - I discovered God's love for the first time, and I also met my future wife. :)
The deeds attributed to the deity featured in the Bible are evil!
I'm going to attempt to be a sort of moderate voice here, floo. In the early part of the Bible, the deeds of the deity certainly seem to be weighted down on the evil side. There are also deeds attributed to the deity which are good. Since all we know of these supposed 'deeds', and all we know of God's supposed 'goodness' are simply accounts written from the point of view of men (and some women), there is no reason to suppose that the deity is one thing or the other. Sometimes he appears good, sometimes bad. You cherry pick the bad, BA cherry picks the good - and in fact, since he rejects the whole of the Old Testament, he's halfway to your viewpoint in any case. And his view of the loving Jesus in the NT, though highly attractive, and supported by a fair number of scholars, in itself can only be upheld by strenuously rejecting various 'uncomfortable' texts, and explaining them away.
I wonder, is it possible to approach the Bible with out some kind of emotional involvement, in the attitude of objective scholarship? I certainly had a very emotional attitude to it in the (distant) past, but now I try to see it as an interesting collection of ancient texts, some of which can still move me, but without feeling any compunction to believe. I find the byways of scholarship about the Bible interesting, in the same way that some historians get enthused about the civilisations of the ancient Maya or the Hittites. But maybe I'm in a minority too.
One point I would make is that if you are able to approach the Bible without emotional involvement, then you are never going to effectively engage with it.
Okay, but I've already said that at one point (in fact two points) in my life was very emotionally involved with it. That brought nothing but tears and confusion. I see much more clearly now, and have fewer headaches.
If you truly believed the deity had given you a direct order to kill one of your children, or anyone else for that matter, would you obey?You have chosen to ask a hypothetical question about a scenario that will never happen. God is not evil, and He will not ask me to do anything which is inherently evil - it is just not possible.
However, I have been asked to do something which I would never normally consider because I felt totally incapable - to lead the singing in a charismatic prayer group. In my youth I would attend the early morning Mass because I wanted to avoid the singing - I could not sing and I did not like to hear singing during Mass. When the opportunity arose to lead the singing in the prayer group I felt God prompting me to say "yes". Little did I know at the time that this decision would change my life - I discovered God's love for the first time, and I also met my future wife. :)
The deeds attributed to the deity featured in the Bible are evil!
I'm going to attempt to be a sort of moderate voice here, floo. In the early part of the Bible, the deeds of the deity certainly seem to be weighted down on the evil side. There are also deeds attributed to the deity which are good. Since all we know of these supposed 'deeds', and all we know of God's supposed 'goodness' are simply accounts written from the point of view of men (and some women), there is no reason to suppose that the deity is one thing or the other. Sometimes he appears good, sometimes bad. You cherry pick the bad, BA cherry picks the good - and in fact, since he rejects the whole of the Old Testament, he's halfway to your viewpoint in any case. And his view of the loving Jesus in the NT, though highly attractive, and supported by a fair number of scholars, in itself can only be upheld by strenuously rejecting various 'uncomfortable' texts, and explaining them away.
I wonder, is it possible to approach the Bible with out some kind of emotional involvement, in the attitude of objective scholarship? I certainly had a very emotional attitude to it in the (distant) past, but now I try to see it as an interesting collection of ancient texts, some of which can still move me, but without feeling any compunction to believe. I find the byways of scholarship about the Bible interesting, in the same way that some historians get enthused about the civilisations of the ancient Maya or the Hittites. But maybe I'm in a minority too.
I don't think the deity behaves well in the NT, either!
One point I would make is that if you are able to approach the Bible without emotional involvement, then you are never going to effectively engage with it.
Okay, but I've already said that at one point (in fact two points) in my life was very emotionally involved with it. That brought nothing but tears and confusion. I see much more clearly now, and have fewer headaches.
What I'm really saying is, did you truly believe, in your distress; or were you looking for instant balm? I don't say this in a negative manner. I honestly believe that God will respond to you if you believe with all your heart.
If you truly believed the deity had given you a direct order to kill one of your children, or anyone else for that matter, would you obey?You have chosen to ask a hypothetical question about a scenario that will never happen. God is not evil, and He will not ask me to do anything which is inherently evil - it is just not possible.
However, I have been asked to do something which I would never normally consider because I felt totally incapable - to lead the singing in a charismatic prayer group. In my youth I would attend the early morning Mass because I wanted to avoid the singing - I could not sing and I did not like to hear singing during Mass. When the opportunity arose to lead the singing in the prayer group I felt God prompting me to say "yes". Little did I know at the time that this decision would change my life - I discovered God's love for the first time, and I also met my future wife. :)
The deeds attributed to the deity featured in the Bible are evil!
I'm going to attempt to be a sort of moderate voice here, floo. In the early part of the Bible, the deeds of the deity certainly seem to be weighted down on the evil side. There are also deeds attributed to the deity which are good. Since all we know of these supposed 'deeds', and all we know of God's supposed 'goodness' are simply accounts written from the point of view of men (and some women), there is no reason to suppose that the deity is one thing or the other. Sometimes he appears good, sometimes bad. You cherry pick the bad, BA cherry picks the good - and in fact, since he rejects the whole of the Old Testament, he's halfway to your viewpoint in any case. And his view of the loving Jesus in the NT, though highly attractive, and supported by a fair number of scholars, in itself can only be upheld by strenuously rejecting various 'uncomfortable' texts, and explaining them away.
I wonder, is it possible to approach the Bible with out some kind of emotional involvement, in the attitude of objective scholarship? I certainly had a very emotional attitude to it in the (distant) past, but now I try to see it as an interesting collection of ancient texts, some of which can still move me, but without feeling any compunction to believe. I find the byways of scholarship about the Bible interesting, in the same way that some historians get enthused about the civilisations of the ancient Maya or the Hittites. But maybe I'm in a minority too.
I don't think the deity behaves well in the NT, either!
As I pointed out - one has to cherry-pick the NT to get rid of the nasty bits :) But both the good and the bad are there - and the reports are simply in a collection of ancient writings.
If you truly believed the deity had given you a direct order to kill one of your children, or anyone else for that matter, would you obey?You have chosen to ask a hypothetical question about a scenario that will never happen. God is not evil, and He will not ask me to do anything which is inherently evil - it is just not possible.
However, I have been asked to do something which I would never normally consider because I felt totally incapable - to lead the singing in a charismatic prayer group. In my youth I would attend the early morning Mass because I wanted to avoid the singing - I could not sing and I did not like to hear singing during Mass. When the opportunity arose to lead the singing in the prayer group I felt God prompting me to say "yes". Little did I know at the time that this decision would change my life - I discovered God's love for the first time, and I also met my future wife. :)
The deeds attributed to the deity featured in the Bible are evil!
I'm going to attempt to be a sort of moderate voice here, floo. In the early part of the Bible, the deeds of the deity certainly seem to be weighted down on the evil side. There are also deeds attributed to the deity which are good. Since all we know of these supposed 'deeds', and all we know of God's supposed 'goodness' are simply accounts written from the point of view of men (and some women), there is no reason to suppose that the deity is one thing or the other. Sometimes he appears good, sometimes bad. You cherry pick the bad, BA cherry picks the good - and in fact, since he rejects the whole of the Old Testament, he's halfway to your viewpoint in any case. And his view of the loving Jesus in the NT, though highly attractive, and supported by a fair number of scholars, in itself can only be upheld by strenuously rejecting various 'uncomfortable' texts, and explaining them away.
I wonder, is it possible to approach the Bible with out some kind of emotional involvement, in the attitude of objective scholarship? I certainly had a very emotional attitude to it in the (distant) past, but now I try to see it as an interesting collection of ancient texts, some of which can still move me, but without feeling any compunction to believe. I find the byways of scholarship about the Bible interesting, in the same way that some historians get enthused about the civilisations of the ancient Maya or the Hittites. But maybe I'm in a minority too.
I don't think the deity behaves well in the NT, either!
As I pointed out - one has to cherry-pick the NT to get rid of the nasty bits :) But both the good and the bad are there - and the reports are simply in a collection of ancient writings.
With respect: then you didn't believe with all your heart. It's never too late to re-think and find a way.
Can you point out the good, please?
"Can you point out the good, please?"
Allow me to butt in: since you never read my posts, your answer is, simply: love, forgive, do unto others, turn the other cheek, etc.
s that if you doubt what Jesus says, as Peter clearly did, then you doubt Him
Du,
Further: I am reminded of Jesus walking on water, and Peter attempting to, but failing. Whether or not the story is true matters not. What was being said is that if you doubt what Jesus says, even though you may think you don't, unless it is 100% belief, then you effectively doubt Him. Peter clearly did have some doubt; but as we see later, he came to believe totally in the final analysis. So if he did, so can others overcome that doubt.
s that if you doubt what Jesus says, as Peter clearly did, then you doubt Him
Du,
Further: I am reminded of Jesus walking on water, and Peter attempting to, but failing. Whether or not the story is true matters not. What was being said is that if you doubt what Jesus says, even though you may think you don't, unless it is 100% belief, then you effectively doubt Him. Peter clearly did have some doubt; but as we see later, he came to believe totally in the final analysis. So if he did, so can others overcome that doubt.
Strange - the proportion of doubt and belief in me during those terrible times were not uppermost in my mind. Now I certainly doubt, and am quite happy with that. When one has analysed these matters in the light of reason and experience, the time comes when one accepts life just as it is. I have no hopes of eternity, but I don't find this at all daunting.
As far as your own belief is concerned, it comes down to placing your belief in certain key texts, selected from the accepted canon. You have your own criteria for choosing which texts you believe in, but would you accept the Gospel of Thomas or Philip as authoritative, and if not, why not?
Why not the Baghavad Gita?
Can you point out the good, please?
Don't be silly. Jesus is reported as having healed people, having preached love and forgiveness etc. Not to mention having gone courageously to a hideous death. You know this.
I don't know if these things actually happened, i don't know for absolute certain whether he actually existed - or at least I can't prove it. But I can't see that everything recorded in the NT comes under the category of 'evil', even though a lot obviously does.
The NT confirms that faith is the key you need to use to unlock God's power. I know from my own experience and that of many other Christians that in order for a prayer to be answered, first you need to believe that God has the power to answer it.
You say you believe God will respond, and many others will testify that God does not respond. What I do believe that if you are truly disposed to be convinced of the existence of 'spiritual' things, then the mind itself can often come up with some extraordinary experiences.
Du,
Further: I am reminded of Jesus walking on water, and Peter attempting to, but failing. Whether or not the story is true matters not. What was being said is that if you doubt what Jesus says, even though you may think you don't, unless it is 100% belief, then you effectively doubt Him. Peter clearly did have some doubt; but as we see later, he came to believe totally in the final analysis. So if he did, so can others overcome that doubt.
The NT confirms that faith is the key you need to use to unlock God's power. I know from my own experience and that of many other Christians that in order for a prayer to be answered, first you need to believe that God has the power to answer it.
You say you believe God will respond, and many others will testify that God does not respond. What I do believe that if you are truly disposed to be convinced of the existence of 'spiritual' things, then the mind itself can often come up with some extraordinary experiences.
Let's hear it for doubt. Doubt is a good thing. Through doubting, we remain humble enough to be open to new insights. With certainty, we close our minds and narrow our horizons. Certainty might be more comfortable, but it is an illusion; nothing is ever completely certain.
And by definition you do not have freewill because you are being conditioned and influenced which is contrary to the actions of freewill. Anything that impinges a bias into something has tarnished its capacity to act in a freewill manner, and by adhering to a set of laws and rules set out by your God you have chained yourself to a conditional format.If you read what I said, once I have full knowledge of God I would be unable to consciously do something bad in His name unless I changed sides to to it deliberately against His will.
Then that isn't freewill, if it was your will and choice to do evil in Gods name and It stopped you! You can't have 80% freewill, it is either all or nothing.
But your if we wish to do so consciousness has to have a nature to do this else how can it motivate itself to take such actions? How does it decide? And a nature implies biases and likes.You can't have 80% freewill, it is either all or nothing. This is something your argument has failed to appreciate that freewill means total freeness to choose without restriction and to be unhindered by any biases and conditions.Your logic is wrong. Many things can influence our decisions, but our conscious awareness can override these if we wish to do so. It only takes one act of conscious free will to show evidence for the human soul.
You will not find the origin of free will in any nature. It has to come from outside the deterministic nature of thing in our universe, otherwise it is not free will. The origin of human free will is in the self awareness of the human soul. We have the amazing ability to do something just because we wish to do it.
But your if we wish to do so consciousness has to have a nature to do this else how can it motivate itself to take such actions? How does it decide? And a nature implies biases and likes.
Let's hear it for doubt. Doubt is a good thing. Through doubting, we remain humble enough to be open to new insights. With certainty, we close our minds and narrow our horizons. Certainty might be more comfortable, but it is an illusion; nothing is ever completely certain.
"Doubt may be uncomfortable but certainty is ridiculous." - Voltaire
We have the amazing ability to do something just because we wish to do it.If you wish that you could hold your breath for 20 minutes, could you do it?
I could give it a go using my free will, but my natural instincts would override, as they are designed to do if we try to deliberately put ourselves in danger. However there are still some things which even our natural instincts might not be able to override, depending on how strong willed we are - such as jumping off a cliff.We have the amazing ability to do something just because we wish to do it.If you wish that you could hold your breath for 20 minutes, could you do it?
Go in give it a go.
I could give it a go using my free will, but my natural instincts would override, as they are designed to do if we try to deliberately put ourselves in danger. However there are still some things which even our natural instincts might not be able to override, depending on how strong willed we are - such as jumping off a cliff.
You will not find the origin of free will in any nature. It has to come from outside the deterministic nature of thing in our universe, otherwise it is not free will. The origin of human free will is in the self awareness of the human soul. We have the amazing ability to do something just because we wish to do it.
But your if we wish to do so consciousness has to have a nature to do this else how can it motivate itself to take such actions? How does it decide? And a nature implies biases and likes.
So, not such an amazing ability after all then......I could give it a go using my free will, but my natural instincts would override, as they are designed to do if we try to deliberately put ourselves in danger. However there are still some things which even our natural instincts might not be able to override, depending on how strong willed we are - such as jumping off a cliff.We have the amazing ability to do something just because we wish to do it.If you wish that you could hold your breath for 20 minutes, could you do it?
Go in give it a go.
We have the amazing ability to do something just because we wish to do it.
Nobody can want something that they don't want.
Your natural instincts will tell you to not try to breathe whilst underwater as that would put you in danger.I could give it a go using my free will, but my natural instincts would override, as they are designed to do if we try to deliberately put ourselves in danger. However there are still some things which even our natural instincts might not be able to override, depending on how strong willed we are - such as jumping off a cliff.We have the amazing ability to do something just because we wish to do it.If you wish that you could hold your breath for 20 minutes, could you do it?
Go in give it a go.
The NT confirms that faith is the key you need to use to unlock God's power. I know from my own experience and that of many other Christians that in order for a prayer to be answered, first you need to believe that God has the power to answer it.
You say you believe God will respond, and many others will testify that God does not respond. What I do believe that if you are truly disposed to be convinced of the existence of 'spiritual' things, then the mind itself can often come up with some extraordinary experiences.
Well said, Len.Nobody can want something that they don't want.
True, Torri, but we can't control what we want, but we CAN control whether we act on that want. That is when we exercise our free will.
And bang goes your freewill, Alan!!! Which just shows what a load of crap you've been talking. You haven't a clue have you, but you're too stupid to realise it.A question for Alan Burns. You have a voice in your head, which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child, as apparently happened to Abraham. Would you obey, tell the deity to get lost, or seek psychiatric attention?God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
which you thought was the deity telling you to kill your child,
God would never allow me to do evil deeds in His name.
What Is God Made From?What is imagination made from?
Imagination of course :)
What is your soul made from?What Is God Made From?What is imagination made from?
Imagination of course :)
Your soul of course.
What Is God Made From?What is imagination made from?
Imagination of course :)
Your soul of course.
Who made your soul?
God of course. :)
Yes, I agree, your soul and consciousness are the same thing. :)
No of course about it, a 'soul' is only a fancy name for consciousness, imo!
That definitional assertion is not what freewill is. It is just your excogitations with your imagination; what you think you can fathom out about your capacities from your Bishop Berkley armchair!!!You will not find the origin of free will in any nature. It has to come from outside the deterministic nature of thing in our universe, otherwise it is not free will. The origin of human free will is in the self awareness of the human soul. We have the amazing ability to do something just because we wish to do it.
But your if we wish to do so consciousness has to have a nature to do this else how can it motivate itself to take such actions? How does it decide? And a nature implies biases and likes.
Yes, I agree, your soul and consciousness are the same thing. :)
No of course about it, a 'soul' is only a fancy name for consciousness, imo!
So what would you say is driving my excogitations?
That definitional assertion is not what freewill is. It is just your excogitations with your imagination; what you think you can fathom out about your capacities from your Bishop Berkley armchair!!!
So what would you say is driving my excogitations?
That definitional assertion is not what freewill is. It is just your excogitations with your imagination; what you think you can fathom out about your capacities from your Bishop Berkley armchair!!!
I come from a similar psychological background and understanding as C G Jung. I take it that our consciousness has its roots in the Collective Unconscious. This has an empirical standing as investigated by Jung, mainly, and therefore our consciousness, the essence that makes up us, that has come from the Unconscious has its own predisposition and nature in perceiving or reacting to life's experiences mainly in emotional value-judgements, but also in an intellectual manner too. Therefore, because it has a nature it also has biases and conditional ways it responds to various inputs.So what would you say is driving my excogitations?
That definitional assertion is not what freewill is. It is just your excogitations with your imagination; what you think you can fathom out about your capacities from your Bishop Berkley armchair!!!
Yes, I agree, your soul and consciousness are the same thing. :)
No of course about it, a 'soul' is only a fancy name for consciousness, imo!
Nobody can want something that they don't want.
True, Torri, but we can't control what we want, but we CAN control whether we act on that want. That is when we exercise our free will.
Nobody can want something that they don't want.
True, Torri, but we can't control what we want, but we CAN control whether we act on that want. That is when we exercise our free will.
If you don't act on a desire, that merely indicates that your desire to not act on it (for whatever reason) was greater than your desire to act on it. You are still acting out your desires at the end of the day and we have no control over our desires, just as we have no control over our fears or our beliefs.
What you call free will merely reflects the greater complexity of considerations that might go on in a human's mind as opposed to in a hedgehog's mind (say). That might be a good enough definition of free will for a chat with a bloke in the pub. But the way decisions are made in a human brain are not categorically different from that in other mammals, or at least not so categorically different as to licence us to think that evolution has produced an organic decision making machine that is fundamentally free of the laws of nature that produced it.
Just something that came from the thoughts from another thread, what do Christians think God is made from; what constitutes the form of God?"What constitutes the form of God?" is better put than "What is God made from?" as the latter implies he was made. So, "What constitutes the form of God?"QuoteGod is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
If you respond with spirit then how did God manipulate the matter that forms the universe and our world? - as it clearly says in Genesis that he moulded the clay to create Adam.
Whether it is correct or not, I have always found it useful, at least conceptually, to think of God as being in another (extra) dimension. For simplicity's sake let's call that the 4th dimension.
TW will like this. If we imagine a 2 dimensional world, i.e. stuff moving within what mathematicians call a "plane", then a 3 dimensional object can interact with those 2 dimensional object. For example, if we imagine a couple of 2 dimensional people moving around in this plane, we can stop them from seeing each other or touching each other by just drawing a line between them, e.g. completely around person #1. However, a 3 dimensional person is totally at liberty to step over that line and is thus not constrained in the same way as the 2 dimensional people.
The 3 dimensional person could actually draw that line, i.e. interact with those 2 dimensional people. If that is similar to how it is with God and us, then God would have no problem manipulating/interacting with/ doing stuff in our world.
If he exists. I'm also happy to add on "if he exists and is the Christian God."Just something that came from the thoughts from another thread, what do Christians think God is made from; what constitutes the form of God?"What constitutes the form of God?" is better put than "What is God made from?" as the latter implies he was made. So, "What constitutes the form of God?"QuoteGod is spirit, though how you define that exactly, I don't know.
If you respond with spirit then how did God manipulate the matter that forms the universe and our world? - as it clearly says in Genesis that he moulded the clay to create Adam.
Whether it is correct or not, I have always found it useful, at least conceptually, to think of God as being in another (extra) dimension. For simplicity's sake let's call that the 4th dimension.
TW will like this. If we imagine a 2 dimensional world, i.e. stuff moving within what mathematicians call a "plane", then a 3 dimensional object can interact with those 2 dimensional object. For example, if we imagine a couple of 2 dimensional people moving around in this plane, we can stop them from seeing each other or touching each other by just drawing a line between them, e.g. completely around person #1. However, a 3 dimensional person is totally at liberty to step over that line and is thus not constrained in the same way as the 2 dimensional people.
The 3 dimensional person could actually draw that line, i.e. interact with those 2 dimensional people. If that is similar to how it is with God and us, then God would have no problem manipulating/interacting with/ doing stuff in our world.
You didn'finish off your post properly you mised "if he existed", only by missing this off it makes a nonsense of your post Alan.
ippy
....Why do you think it is "like falling in love and all that"? I find it very odd that someone seems to think a belief in God should not be "set out and founded in such an intellectual manner." There are frequent claims on these boards that Christian faith is "believing despite the evidence and the like". As far as I can remember, my fellow chemists at university who became Christians became Christians in a similar manner and there are plenty of other Christians who became Christians that way, e.g. my vicar (a former computer programmer). Some of the big brains of Christianity did so too, e.g. CS Lewis.
1) I find it very odd that a faith, which implies to me to be something personal like falling in love and all that, is set out and founded in such an intellectual manner.
Stuff like an overwhelming sense of God's love sometimes. An overwhelming sense of gratitude last week when looking at the pictures of our congregation at church during our prayer week. A one-off, rather weird experience about 20 years ago when being prayed for. Knowing that I am God's son (big "G", little "s"). Stuff like that.
Do you care to relay some of the personal experiences you hint at at the end of this section?
As I mentioned in my PM a while back, I'm confused by your numbering here. My two number twos were:
2) For me that's a big if. As someone who is in the Jungian camp I can explain that in psychological terms. This is based on the basis that it never took place but is something that grows up due to the interaction of consciousness with the Unconscious, and is a function of the elements of the Unconscious called archetypes.
Assuming you are speaking of "Argument from design", so what? Arguments 1-4 do not specifically argue for the Christian God, but rather a generic deistic/theistic God, both of which would get you out of your atheism.
3) That doesn't help. Any religion could say that about their God and outlook.
Eh? No. 4 is about the "Argument from objective morals". You seem to be speaking about no. 1, "the "Argument from contingency (Leibnitz's argument).
4) Actually it is what you claim atheists say or put forward - "This is logically equivalent to an argument often put forward by atheists that if (since) God does not exist, the universe has no explanation."
Who says this? It's rubbish as it makes no sense.
I think we are all muddled up with our numbering. You seem to be accepting "The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.". That would be great, but somehow I don't think we are talking about the same point.
5) OK
Alan, I'm having trouble with this site so I've posted that to see if it will catch, which it did. I don't want to write a whole lot and then for it to fail.I know naff all about Jung, but I try to go on the evidence. The arguments I gave for believing in the existence of God, apart from no. 6, are all arguments which can be looked at whatever tribe or society a person belongs to. I try to keep off the feelings and emotional stuff.
The guy in the sun classes is number 8 but it seems if you put a ")" after it you get him.
So to carry on, and it seems there is not much left.
9) As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the like (see my signature below about the 'dryness' of science). And what bonds us in a group or tribe etc. are those archetypes, and so on, that we have in common. These archetypes work through culture and religion, and creates the loyalty and customs that a society has, or should have. This is what I'm looking for from you (some basis for your belief in your God - a relationship)but all you seems to have is this intellectual dryness that a robot could postulate.
In 137 you wrote, "I known about the fine tuning of the universe, you last bit about numbers. Two points on this. 1) We are here and know no other state so though it looks amazing and all that if it was possible then it could happen. It's like those "what if?" scenarios which are fairly meaningless in these circumstances. 2) It could be that these things are self righting and balances out so if one value changes then all the others change to create a stable state, but not one like our universe if the values are different. The fact is we just don't know(n)."
10) I did add/edit a comment about the numbers thing (fine turning of the universe), in my post above, after I posted it but you got there before I did this. Post 137.
Six Reasons to Believe in God (for a Christian) and Five Reasons to Believe in God (for an atheist):
1) Argument from contingency (Leibnitz’s argument).
2) Kalam cosmological argument.
3) Argument from design.
4) Argument from objective morals.
5) The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
6) The internal witness of the Holy Spirit (Christians only).
These arguments are based on those put forward by Dr. William Lane Craig who has a really good website at www.reasonablefaith.org.[/i]
Do you keep off the emotional stuff for personal reasons? or is it that you feel it's too difficult to manage as a witnessing tool?Alan, I'm having trouble with this site so I've posted that to see if it will catch, which it did. I don't want to write a whole lot and then for it to fail.I know naff all about Jung, but I try to go on the evidence. The arguments I gave for believing in the existence of God, apart from no. 6, are all arguments which can be looked at whatever tribe or society a person belongs to. I try to keep off the feelings and emotional stuff.
The guy in the sun classes is number 8 but it seems if you put a ")" after it you get him.
So to carry on, and it seems there is not much left.
9) As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the like (see my signature below about the 'dryness' of science). And what bonds us in a group or tribe etc. are those archetypes, and so on, that we have in common. These archetypes work through culture and religion, and creates the loyalty and customs that a society has, or should have. This is what I'm looking for from you (some basis for your belief in your God - a relationship)but all you seems to have is this intellectual dryness that a robot could postulate.QuoteIn 137 you wrote, "I known about the fine tuning of the universe, you last bit about numbers. Two points on this. 1) We are here and know no other state so though it looks amazing and all that if it was possible then it could happen. It's like those "what if?" scenarios which are fairly meaningless in these circumstances. 2) It could be that these things are self righting and balances out so if one value changes then all the others change to create a stable state, but not one like our universe if the values are different. The fact is we just don't know(n)."
10) I did add/edit a comment about the numbers thing (fine turning of the universe), in my post above, after I posted it but you got there before I did this. Post 137.
It could be? Is there any evidence for that?
I thought I had explained it clearly enough. I'll try to clarify.Do you keep off the emotional stuff for personal reasons? or is it that you feel it's too difficult to manage as a witnessing tool?Alan, I'm having trouble with this site so I've posted that to see if it will catch, which it did. I don't want to write a whole lot and then for it to fail.I know naff all about Jung, but I try to go on the evidence. The arguments I gave for believing in the existence of God, apart from no. 6, are all arguments which can be looked at whatever tribe or society a person belongs to. I try to keep off the feelings and emotional stuff.
The guy in the sun classes is number 8 but it seems if you put a ")" after it you get him.
So to carry on, and it seems there is not much left.
9) As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the like (see my signature below about the 'dryness' of science). And what bonds us in a group or tribe etc. are those archetypes, and so on, that we have in common. These archetypes work through culture and religion, and creates the loyalty and customs that a society has, or should have. This is what I'm looking for from you (some basis for your belief in your God - a relationship)but all you seems to have is this intellectual dryness that a robot could postulate.QuoteIn 137 you wrote, "I known about the fine tuning of the universe, you last bit about numbers. Two points on this. 1) We are here and know no other state so though it looks amazing and all that if it was possible then it could happen. It's like those "what if?" scenarios which are fairly meaningless in these circumstances. 2) It could be that these things are self righting and balances out so if one value changes then all the others change to create a stable state, but not one like our universe if the values are different. The fact is we just don't know(n)."
10) I did add/edit a comment about the numbers thing (fine turning of the universe), in my post above, after I posted it but you got there before I did this. Post 137.
It could be? Is there any evidence for that?
OK, but I honestly don't think it is the case for me. Ask my wife if I am an emotional person. Even the stuff I wrote about above is the result of me thinking things through head-wise and letting it sink in deep into my being as a Christian.
The reason why I have gone on about the emotional side of things is because it is related to communities and group cultures and a sense of belonging - the tribe thing. The way I see it all this feeling of being moved by the spirit and feeling loved really stems from the need to be in a tribe and culture where one feels at home.
I assume your next bit is to my number 2 of a self righting mechanism. I vaguely remember some scientist postulating this as a possibility but I can't say for sure.If you would like to repost your bits with my bits which you are responding to, please feel free. I am happy to discuss with you, but don't have time to do detective work to try and work out which bit in your post matches which bit in mine in other posts in the past.
Six Reasons to Believe in God (for a Christian) and Five Reasons to Believe in God (for an atheist):
1) Argument from contingency (Leibnitz’s argument).
2) Kalam cosmological argument.
3) Argument from design.
4) Argument from objective morals.
5) The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
6) The internal witness of the Holy Spirit (Christians only).
Alien - your 445.The term "relationship" gets used in different ways by Christians, not all of them sensibly. I have a relationship with a bloke called, "Alf" in that he is my father and I am his son. I will be going to see him again tomorrow, God willing. Other people are sons of their father's yet do not know their father, e.g. if the have been adopted or the father has naffed off. Yet they are still the son of their father.
Why do you think it is "like falling in love and all that"? I find it very odd that someone seems to think a belief in God should not be "set out and founded in such an intellectual manner." There are frequent claims on these boards that Christian faith is "believing despite the evidence and the like". As far as I can remember, my fellow chemists at university who became Christians became Christians in a similar manner and there are plenty of other Christians who became Christians that way, e.g. my vicar (a former computer programmer). Some of the big brains of Christianity did so too, e.g. CS Lewis.
I've put your stuff in colour.
I think that it is like falling in love because isn't it suppose to be a relationship, not some cold contractual agreement or some academic positional understanding based on some data. The data or evidence should be a personal one from experience just as relationships are in real life. The fact that others have taken to the Christian faith as you mention based on the cold evidence of texts etc. is a sad indictment of the paucity of our era. Isn't this faith of yours suppose to be about life not some action of signing on the dotted line?
Except that, as a Christian, my relationship with my Father in heaven actually exists, whereas a Muslim, say, would not claim such a relationship (I think). For a Muslim they are servants (and servants only) of Allah (in their understanding).
Stuff like an overwhelming sense of God's love sometimes. An overwhelming sense of gratitude last week when looking at the pictures of our congregation at church during our prayer week. A one-off, rather weird experience about 20 years ago when being prayed for. Knowing that I am God's son (big "G", little "s"). Stuff like that.
As I have said elsewhere, I tend not to bring this up too much as though knowing of a person's personal experience may be interesting and may be thought-provoking, I don't think it is evidence for someone else to hook onto and, as a result, become a Christian. For that they need to be clobbered by God directly as one of my friends was or to look at the good evidence there is and which we discuss endlessly here.
What you outline there people get anyway, in all walks of life. There's nothing unusual or unique to your faith in what you say.
In fact the emotional content of these that you mention I have had, but without the God stuff.How can you have a relationship with God without believing he exists, "without the God stuff"? I don't understand your point.
People tend to have these things when they are younger. I'm more interested in what makes people tick, not some academic position per se.Then I may not be able to help you as much as you would like unless, say, you can accurately determine across the aether and reading between the lines what makes me tick.
Actually, it is rarely used, which is a pity. My lot tend to be rather touchy-feely, but we do use it on rare occasions.
I just found it odd, at the time, that when asked about how your faith came about you set out this academic list and not the personal relationship that Christians are suppose to have which, I assumed, starts things off, but as you have explained yours was on the evidence.
I don't mind going through the philosophy material you have presented, which I sense is teaching material for your churches use(?).
Good idea, sir.
As I mentioned in my PM a while back, I'm confused by your numbering here.
"Apart from #5 which is about Jesus Christ? If he was raised from the dead then it points clearly to his claims about himself being true."
My 2 refers to this above which is your 2nd section reply in my 155. I think we may need to start again from my 155. What do you think?
Well, no, but I'll drop it for now. All this stemmed from you telling me, when I asked, about how you became a Christian and I found your account highly intellectual and cold i.e. the intellectual is in the third person, it's impersonal; a dry fact, but I was always led to believe that being a Christian was about a relationship with one's God like with a close friend of spouse etc. not like buying some cow from a cattle market because its analysis of it says it is healthy and a good producer of milk.I thought I had explained it clearly enough. I'll try to clarify.Do you keep off the emotional stuff for personal reasons? or is it that you feel it's too difficult to manage as a witnessing tool?Alan, I'm having trouble with this site so I've posted that to see if it will catch, which it did. I don't want to write a whole lot and then for it to fail.I know naff all about Jung, but I try to go on the evidence. The arguments I gave for believing in the existence of God, apart from no. 6, are all arguments which can be looked at whatever tribe or society a person belongs to. I try to keep off the feelings and emotional stuff.
The guy in the sun classes is number 8 but it seems if you put a ")" after it you get him.
So to carry on, and it seems there is not much left.
9) As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the like (see my signature below about the 'dryness' of science). And what bonds us in a group or tribe etc. are those archetypes, and so on, that we have in common. These archetypes work through culture and religion, and creates the loyalty and customs that a society has, or should have. This is what I'm looking for from you (some basis for your belief in your God - a relationship)but all you seems to have is this intellectual dryness that a robot could postulate.QuoteIn 137 you wrote, "I known about the fine tuning of the universe, you last bit about numbers. Two points on this. 1) We are here and know no other state so though it looks amazing and all that if it was possible then it could happen. It's like those "what if?" scenarios which are fairly meaningless in these circumstances. 2) It could be that these things are self righting and balances out so if one value changes then all the others change to create a stable state, but not one like our universe if the values are different. The fact is we just don't know(n)."
10) I did add/edit a comment about the numbers thing (fine turning of the universe), in my post above, after I posted it but you got there before I did this. Post 137.
It could be? Is there any evidence for that?
I don't see any need to get onto "emotional stuff". How does "emotional stuff" demonstrate anything? Maybe it is just my make up (IN, very T, extremely J on the old Myers-Briggs thingy), but if I am trying to demonstrate something to be true, how would bringing emotional stuff into it help? Perhaps you mean stuff like:
Jesus is the most important person in my life. I get choked up hearing or singing songs like "Before the throne of God above" and "This is the air I breathe" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gs_qlCWrPk). I find it desperately sad when Christians, here and elsewhere, bicker in front of people who desperately need to hear the good news of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you mean stuff like me crying in joy as well as sadness when I saw my mum's dead body in the local hospital a few years ago when she died suddenly and went to be with her Lord. Similar for my mate Jon when he died of lung cancer. Perhaps you mean the joy of seeing my father-in-law come to an uncomplicated faith in Jesus (nearly as late as the penitent thief on the cross!).
Is that the sort of thing you mean?
I had kind of guessed that from what you have said on previous posts about your conversion and life, but you don't seem to think it is a problem or odd, especially in relation to your God, that you became a Christian from the third person, impersonal intellectual angle(?).QuoteOK, but I honestly don't think it is the case for me. Ask my wife if I am an emotional person. Even the stuff I wrote about above is the result of me thinking things through head-wise and letting it sink in deep into my being as a Christian.
The reason why I have gone on about the emotional side of things is because it is related to communities and group cultures and a sense of belonging - the tribe thing. The way I see it all this feeling of being moved by the spirit and feeling loved really stems from the need to be in a tribe and culture where one feels at home.
...No, I don't. Why should I? The intellectual questions that I then had got answered to my satisfaction in March 1978. The personal experience came later.
I had kind of guessed that from what you have said on previous posts about your conversion and life, but you don't seem to think it is a problem or odd, especially in relation to your God, that you became a Christian from the third person, impersonal intellectual angle(?).
The term "relationship" gets used in different ways by Christians, not all of them sensibly. I have a relationship with a bloke called, "Alf" in that he is my father and I am his son. I will be going to see him again tomorrow, God willing. Other people are sons of their father's yet do not know their father, e.g. if the have been adopted or the father has naffed off. Yet they are still the son of their father.
I've put your stuff in colour.
I think that it is like falling in love because isn't it suppose to be a relationship, not some cold contractual agreement or some academic positional understanding based on some data. The data or evidence should be a personal one from experience just as relationships are in real life. The fact that others have taken to the Christian faith as you mention based on the cold evidence of texts etc. is a sad indictment of the paucity of our era. Isn't this faith of yours suppose to be about life not some action of signing on the dotted line?
What you outline there people get anyway, in all walks of life. There's nothing unusual or unique to your faith in what you say.Except that, as a Christian, my relationship with my Father in heaven actually exists, whereas a Muslim, say, would not claim such a relationship (I think). For a Muslim they are servants (and servants only) of Allah (in their understanding).
In fact the emotional content of these that you mention I have had, but without the God stuff.How can you have a relationship with God without believing he exists, "without the God stuff"? I don't understand your point.
I just found it odd, at the time, that when asked about how your faith came about you set out this academic list and not the personal relationship that Christians are suppose to have which, I assumed, starts things off, but as you have explained yours was on the evidence.
I don't mind going through the philosophy material you have presented, which I sense is teaching material for your churches use(?).
"Apart from #5 which is about Jesus Christ? If he was raised from the dead then it points clearly to his claims about himself being true."Good idea, sir.
My 2 refers to this above which is your 2nd section reply in my 155. I think we may need to start again from my 155. What do you think?
Alien, your 454, and your material is in colour.And sometimes they are right to assume it is due to God. Sometimes they are not. That's why I try to look at the evidence. I no more want to be mistaken about this than anyone else.I was explaining (what I would claim is the) fact of my relationship with my Father in Heaven. The basis of that relationship is that he loves me, has forgiven my sins and adopted me as his son. That is the basis. What is my response? It is one of immense gratitude and love for him. A desire to please him. A thankfulness for what he has done and does for me. Sometimes that is overwhelming. There is also a desire that other people will come to know the same.
I've put your stuff in colour.
...]Except that, as a Christian, my relationship with my Father in heaven actually exists, whereas a Muslim, say, would not claim such a relationship (I think). For a Muslim they are servants (and servants only) of Allah (in their understanding).
[/color]
But people do not view their relationships with their loved one and relatives etc. in such stark, matter of fact manners. They are filled with some emotional context whether positive or negative which gives it a value-judgement. Yet again you are setting your relationship to your God in a cold contractual setting.QuoteIn fact the emotional content of these that you mention I have had, but without the God stuff.How can you have a relationship with God without believing he exists, "without the God stuff"? I don't understand your point.
I'm going on about emotional responses; I said emotional content. We all have emotions. The fact that you relate this to your God is neither here nor there. Joy, sadness etc. comes to us all; well most of us there are some conditions like autism where it doesn't apply so much. That's what I meant.
People have an emotional response in the context of a "God" situation and assume it is due to God but it is really due to our need for fellowship or group/tribe where we feel they belong etc. Emotions are emotions, there are no special emotions that are activated by any God or whatever.
Sometimes, yes. :) However, people's response to God's love, as you seem to suggest, will surely naturally include warm emotion (to understate it somewhat).QuoteI just found it odd, at the time, that when asked about how your faith came about you set out this academic list and not the personal relationship that Christians are suppose to have which, I assumed, starts things off, but as you have explained yours was on the evidence.
I don't mind going through the philosophy material you have presented, which I sense is teaching material for your churches use(?).
Actually, it is rarely used, which is a pity. My lot tend to be rather touchy-feely, but we do use it on rare occasions.
Sounds like you are in the wrong church. All that touchy-feely stuff must put your teeth on edge...?
Quote"Apart from #5 which is about Jesus Christ? If he was raised from the dead then it points clearly to his claims about himself being true."Good idea, sir.
My 2 refers to this above which is your 2nd section reply in my 155. I think we may need to start again from my 155. What do you think?
I'll await your post.
OK. I can't add to what I have already said....No, I don't. Why should I? The intellectual questions that I then had got answered to my satisfaction in March 1978. The personal experience came later.
I had kind of guessed that from what you have said on previous posts about your conversion and life, but you don't seem to think it is a problem or odd, especially in relation to your God, that you became a Christian from the third person, impersonal intellectual angle(?).
And sometimes they are right to assume it is due to God. Sometimes they are not. That's why I try to look at the evidence. I no more want to be mistaken about this than anyone else.Alien, your 454, and your material is in colour.And sometimes they are right to assume it is due to God. Sometimes they are not. That's why I try to look at the evidence. I no more want to be mistaken about this than anyone else.I was explaining (what I would claim is the) fact of my relationship with my Father in Heaven. The basis of that relationship is that he loves me, has forgiven my sins and adopted me as his son. That is the basis. What is my response? It is one of immense gratitude and love for him. A desire to please him. A thankfulness for what he has done and does for me. Sometimes that is overwhelming. There is also a desire that other people will come to know the same.
I've put your stuff in colour.
...]Except that, as a Christian, my relationship with my Father in heaven actually exists, whereas a Muslim, say, would not claim such a relationship (I think). For a Muslim they are servants (and servants only) of Allah (in their understanding).
[/color]
But people do not view their relationships with their loved one and relatives etc. in such stark, matter of fact manners. They are filled with some emotional context whether positive or negative which gives it a value-judgement. Yet again you are setting your relationship to your God in a cold contractual setting.QuoteIn fact the emotional content of these that you mention I have had, but without the God stuff.How can you have a relationship with God without believing he exists, "without the God stuff"? I don't understand your point.
I'm going on about emotional responses; I said emotional content. We all have emotions. The fact that you relate this to your God is neither here nor there. Joy, sadness etc. comes to us all; well most of us there are some conditions like autism where it doesn't apply so much. That's what I meant.
People have an emotional response in the context of a "God" situation and assume it is due to God but it is really due to our need for fellowship or group/tribe where we feel they belong etc. Emotions are emotions, there are no special emotions that are activated by any God or whatever.QuoteSometimes, yes. :) However, people's response to God's love, as you seem to suggest, will surely naturally include warm emotion (to understate it somewhat).QuoteI just found it odd, at the time, that when asked about how your faith came about you set out this academic list and not the personal relationship that Christians are suppose to have which, I assumed, starts things off, but as you have explained yours was on the evidence.
I don't mind going through the philosophy material you have presented, which I sense is teaching material for your churches use(?).
Actually, it is rarely used, which is a pity. My lot tend to be rather touchy-feely, but we do use it on rare occasions.
Sounds like you are in the wrong church. All that touchy-feely stuff must put your teeth on edge...?QuoteQuote"Apart from #5 which is about Jesus Christ? If he was raised from the dead then it points clearly to his claims about himself being true."Good idea, sir.
My 2 refers to this above which is your 2nd section reply in my 155. I think we may need to start again from my 155. What do you think?
I'll await your post.
...I don't think you are correct. I have emotions about my mum and she is not here before me physically (she died a few years ago). I can have certain emotions about Henry VII, Archbishop Cranmer and William the Conqueror and they too are not physically before me. I even get a bit soppy about potential grandchildren and they are not physically before me.
But emotions look/feel the same for similar "objects" if they, emotions, are viewed as the things-in-themselves within us. We only have clarification of what they relate to, their content, when we have that "object" (whatever it is or who it is) before us, physically. As none of you lot have ever seen God then how can you relate any of your emotions to God? As I said emotions are emotions, they are earthly and have evolved for our existence here i.e. the social and community framework, and friendships etc.
Alien, if you intend to look at my 155 and 158 again I could try to make it clearer and tidy it up a bit....yeah?Another excellent idea!
Your mum and grandchildren are based on experience, experience that have a physical basis - memory plays a part here....I don't think you are correct. I have emotions about my mum and she is not here before me physically (she died a few years ago). I can have certain emotions about Henry VII, Archbishop Cranmer and William the Conqueror and they too are not physically before me. I even get a bit soppy about potential grandchildren and they are not physically before me.
But emotions look/feel the same for similar "objects" if they, emotions, are viewed as the things-in-themselves within us. We only have clarification of what they relate to, their content, when we have that "object" (whatever it is or who it is) before us, physically. As none of you lot have ever seen God then how can you relate any of your emotions to God? As I said emotions are emotions, they are earthly and have evolved for our existence here i.e. the social and community framework, and friendships etc.
With my mum, yes, but I don't have any grandchildren, so not so with them.Your mum and grandchildren are based on experience, experience that have a physical basis - memory plays a part here....I don't think you are correct. I have emotions about my mum and she is not here before me physically (she died a few years ago). I can have certain emotions about Henry VII, Archbishop Cranmer and William the Conqueror and they too are not physically before me. I even get a bit soppy about potential grandchildren and they are not physically before me.
But emotions look/feel the same for similar "objects" if they, emotions, are viewed as the things-in-themselves within us. We only have clarification of what they relate to, their content, when we have that "object" (whatever it is or who it is) before us, physically. As none of you lot have ever seen God then how can you relate any of your emotions to God? As I said emotions are emotions, they are earthly and have evolved for our existence here i.e. the social and community framework, and friendships etc.
But you said they had to be physically before us.
As for the others these too are based on experience, indirectly applied, by relating to their circumstance in some manner from your life experiences - though I would need the details to see what exactly was welling you up to postulate a probable cause from possible life experiences of yours.
What I've done is to number your replies to link them to my numbered replies using ']' so the first is 1]. If you duplicate the forum page to a separate tab you can then easily see what relates to what instead of trying to see it all in the reply box with all those 'quote' and technical jargon. I hope this helps...?Alien, if you intend to look at my 155 and 158 again I could try to make it clearer and tidy it up a bit....yeah?Another excellent idea!
Children are children whether they are 'grand' or not. If one is emotional about children then our experience of them will be invoked even with the thought of future ones.With my mum, yes, but I don't have any grandchildren, so not so with them.Your mum and grandchildren are based on experience, experience that have a physical basis - memory plays a part here....I don't think you are correct. I have emotions about my mum and she is not here before me physically (she died a few years ago). I can have certain emotions about Henry VII, Archbishop Cranmer and William the Conqueror and they too are not physically before me. I even get a bit soppy about potential grandchildren and they are not physically before me.
But emotions look/feel the same for similar "objects" if they, emotions, are viewed as the things-in-themselves within us. We only have clarification of what they relate to, their content, when we have that "object" (whatever it is or who it is) before us, physically. As none of you lot have ever seen God then how can you relate any of your emotions to God? As I said emotions are emotions, they are earthly and have evolved for our existence here i.e. the social and community framework, and friendships etc.QuoteBut you said they had to be physically before us.
As for the others these too are based on experience, indirectly applied, by relating to their circumstance in some manner from your life experiences - though I would need the details to see what exactly was welling you up to postulate a probable cause from possible life experiences of yours.
I don't need to know what God looks like to know what he is like and future grandchildren are not my children. They don't exist yet, yet I can think about them and experience emotion about them.Children are children whether they are 'grand' or not. If one is emotional about children then our experience of them will be invoked even with the thought of future ones.With my mum, yes, but I don't have any grandchildren, so not so with them.Your mum and grandchildren are based on experience, experience that have a physical basis - memory plays a part here....I don't think you are correct. I have emotions about my mum and she is not here before me physically (she died a few years ago). I can have certain emotions about Henry VII, Archbishop Cranmer and William the Conqueror and they too are not physically before me. I even get a bit soppy about potential grandchildren and they are not physically before me.
But emotions look/feel the same for similar "objects" if they, emotions, are viewed as the things-in-themselves within us. We only have clarification of what they relate to, their content, when we have that "object" (whatever it is or who it is) before us, physically. As none of you lot have ever seen God then how can you relate any of your emotions to God? As I said emotions are emotions, they are earthly and have evolved for our existence here i.e. the social and community framework, and friendships etc.QuoteBut you said they had to be physically before us.
As for the others these too are based on experience, indirectly applied, by relating to their circumstance in some manner from your life experiences - though I would need the details to see what exactly was welling you up to postulate a probable cause from possible life experiences of yours.
With regard to historical figures, I did mention memory of our experience as playing a part here, and I did say relating to other peoples' circumstances based on our own experiences. Memory is in affect having it physically before us as it recalls events and circumstances from the past that were before us once.
No one can say they have seen, physically, God or that such and such experience was God related unless God has been recognised for who It is. But as no one knows what this God is or looks like no one can identify It, and therefore no such link can be made with any emotion they may have that seems to come from some unknown source and/or seems inexplicable.
What is your soul made from?What Is God Made From?What is imagination made from?
Imagination of course :)
Your soul of course.
Your imagination of course!
Why, how come? and how does that work?I don't need to know what God looks like to know what he is like
Children are children whether they are 'grand' or not. If one is emotional about children then our experience of them will be invoked even with the thought of future ones.
With regard to historical figures, I did mention memory of our experience as playing a part here, and I did say relating to other peoples' circumstances based on our own experiences. Memory is in affect having it physically before us as it recalls events and circumstances from the past that were before us once.
No one can say they have seen, physically, God or that such and such experience was God related unless God has been recognised for who It is. But as no one knows what this God is or looks like no one can identify It, and therefore no such link can be made with any emotion they may have that seems to come from some unknown source and/or seems inexplicable.
and future grandchildren are not my children. They don't exist yet, yet I can think about them and experience emotion about them.But I explained that you have had experience of children before and from that level of emotion that you have had of engaging with them you transfer that experience onto any possible future children or grandchildren.[/quote]
Anyway, thanks for the psychoanalysis (if that is the correct term).It's just common sense and human nature and a smattering of logic.
So, Sass, you're saying you have been talking to yourself then? We have names for that round here...What is your soul made from?What Is God Made From?What is imagination made from?
Imagination of course :)
Your soul of course.
Your imagination of course!
Okay! that means you and your soul are our imagination...Hear that lads... you just ignore him in future. Sebtoe is our imagination so we do not have to answer him...
You didn't think that one through, did you?
What is your soul made from?What Is God Made From?What is imagination made from?
Imagination of course :)
Your soul of course.
Your imagination of course!
Okay! that means you and your soul are our imagination...Hear that lads... you just ignore him in future. Sebtoe is our imagination so we do not have to answer him...
You didn't think that one through, did you?
...OK.
1] You can ignore this as we have covered this else where.
I appreciate that, but I was asked why I am a Christian. You are not convinced by the evidence, but I am.
2] For me that's a big if.
The Jesus bit you have included in the list of your 6 and the witness of the HS are not philosophy and should not be grouped with the philosophical arguments.I was asked why I am a Christian and this is part of it.
So my "Something" still applies as the philosophical arguments do not lead to anything remotely that could be called God, as these Gods relate to concepts/definitions set out by the various religions.Except that they do. For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is.
No, it is not disingenuous and deceitful. I have never claimed that, say, the Kalam argument takes us to the Christian definition of God on its own, but gets us as far as above. The argument from objective morality, if correct, shows us that this "God" is a source of morality, so now we have a spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, plausibly personal, moral entity for whom the term "God" seems, to me at least, reasonable. With the bit about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, this would take us to the Christian God from that generic understanding of God.
3] That doesn't help. Any religion could say that about their God and outlook - "just go with our definition". You go from the general (in the philosophical arguments) to the specific (that is your Christian God definition). This is disingenuous and deceitful. It is moving the goal posts to suit your ends.
Yes, that is what atheists tend to say. Atheists, not scientists. That was the point I was making. You wrote, "And just to point the flaw in it the claim that science says there's no explanation for the universe isn't true". I didn't make any claim about scientists. - "This is logically equivalent to an argument often put forward by atheists that if (since) God does not exist, the universe has no explanation."
4] Actually it is what you claim atheists say or put forward
You sound like a YECer arguing against evolution
5] OK
6] I wasn't there to see it, is what I'm saying
and I have had nothing to indicate to me from experience to show anything of the Christian God and the actuality of Jesus even in what they call spiritual form.Here I'm not arguing from experience, but that Jesus was buried in a known tomb, two days later the tomb was found to be empty and that over the course of the next 40 days individuals and groups were convinced they saw him, spoke with him and sometimes ate with him. My contention is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God is a better explanation than all the other attempted explanations put together.
Then you have misunderstood it.
7] I don't follow this. Looks more like sophistry and playing with words than anything else.
By the way my position on probability is that it doesn't exist. Something will happen or it will not i.e. probability of 1 or zero.Then you have misunderstood probability too. Perhaps a knowledgeable non-Christian on here would explain about probability. Me doing it would run the risk of look like it being "sophistry and playing with words." If anyone does explain it, then perhaps the following will help.
See 7 above about having numerous or even an infinite number of ways not necessarily being relevant.
8] Where or what I am is of no consequence for me as I did not choose to come into this existence. All I know is that I appear to myself to be of such and such constitution, and that is that.
What I'm saying is we can not know what caused the people to write the manuscripts or to perceive the events it claims to account for in the way they did. There are numerous unknown way in which this could have happened.
Would you mind restating your case on this as I am not completely sure what you are referring to.
9] and 10] are on 158. I hope this makes things a little clearer.
Here I'm not arguing from experience, but that Jesus was buried in a known tomb, two days later the tomb was found to be empty and that over the course of the next 40 days individuals and groups were convinced they saw him, spoke with him and sometimes ate with him. My contention is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God is a better explanation than all the other attempted explanations put together.
So presumably, if you read in another book that a guy was killed and that over the next 40 days un-named individuals and groups saw him, ate with him and spoke to him ....you'd have no option but to believe he had been resurrected?
No little nagging doubts that it could all be fiction?
It's magic, innit.Wot he said
Which book?Here I'm not arguing from experience, but that Jesus was buried in a known tomb, two days later the tomb was found to be empty and that over the course of the next 40 days individuals and groups were convinced they saw him, spoke with him and sometimes ate with him. My contention is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God is a better explanation than all the other attempted explanations put together.
So presumably, if you read in another book that a guy was killed and that over the next 40 days un-named individuals and groups saw him, ate with him and spoke to him ....you'd have no option but to believe he had been resurrected?
No little nagging doubts that it could all be fiction?
Which book?Here I'm not arguing from experience, but that Jesus was buried in a known tomb, two days later the tomb was found to be empty and that over the course of the next 40 days individuals and groups were convinced they saw him, spoke with him and sometimes ate with him. My contention is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God is a better explanation than all the other attempted explanations put together.
So presumably, if you read in another book that a guy was killed and that over the next 40 days un-named individuals and groups saw him, ate with him and spoke to him ....you'd have no option but to believe he had been resurrected?
No little nagging doubts that it could all be fiction?
Which book?Here I'm not arguing from experience, but that Jesus was buried in a known tomb, two days later the tomb was found to be empty and that over the course of the next 40 days individuals and groups were convinced they saw him, spoke with him and sometimes ate with him. My contention is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God is a better explanation than all the other attempted explanations put together.
So presumably, if you read in another book that a guy was killed and that over the next 40 days un-named individuals and groups saw him, ate with him and spoke to him ....you'd have no option but to believe he had been resurrected?
No little nagging doubts that it could all be fiction?
So which book?Which book?Here I'm not arguing from experience, but that Jesus was buried in a known tomb, two days later the tomb was found to be empty and that over the course of the next 40 days individuals and groups were convinced they saw him, spoke with him and sometimes ate with him. My contention is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God is a better explanation than all the other attempted explanations put together.
So presumably, if you read in another book that a guy was killed and that over the next 40 days un-named individuals and groups saw him, ate with him and spoke to him ....you'd have no option but to believe he had been resurrected?
No little nagging doubts that it could all be fiction?
You must remember books, Alan, they're papery things with words printed on them. Any one with that story in them.Which book?Here I'm not arguing from experience, but that Jesus was buried in a known tomb, two days later the tomb was found to be empty and that over the course of the next 40 days individuals and groups were convinced they saw him, spoke with him and sometimes ate with him. My contention is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God is a better explanation than all the other attempted explanations put together.
So presumably, if you read in another book that a guy was killed and that over the next 40 days un-named individuals and groups saw him, ate with him and spoke to him ....you'd have no option but to believe he had been resurrected?
No little nagging doubts that it could all be fiction?
Ever visited Planet Earth, Al?
So which book?
So which book?
It doesn't matter. The book is hypothetical.
You knew that, of course, but everybody knows you can't answer the question without losing, so you are bringing up irrelevances as a diversion.
I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone ...
I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it
Personally, I have a very high opinion of Alan's debating skills. If I were caught red-handed beside a body with a bloody knife in my hand, there is no one in the world I would rather have than Alan defending me!
'Blackadder goes forth' always comes to mind when I read his posts..
I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it
I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone ...
One of those rare genuine LOL moments :D
Personally, I have a very high opinion of Alan's debating skills. If I were caught red-handed beside a body with a bloody knife in my hand, there is no one in the world I would rather have than Alan defending me!
'Blackadder goes forth' always comes to mind when I read his posts..
Hm ... me too.
https://goo.gl/BzKfy8
I think he believes it because he can see no other reason why it was written down, about Christ and all that, than that that was what happened. He would claim, why would they say such things and risk their lives for them etc if they weren't true. And that in trying to explain things otherwise gets the thinker into implausible situations. From that everything else they say and claim has to be considered as being accurate in what he would see as a provable plausible position.I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it
Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".
Or have I misunderstood him?
I think he believes it because he can see no other reason why it was written down, about Christ and all that, than that that was what happened. He would claim, why would they say such things and risk their lives for them etc if they weren't true. And that in trying to explain things otherwise gets the thinker into implausible situations. From that everything else they say and claim has to be considered as being accurate in what he would see as a provable plausible position.
Yes, you have misunderstood me. It is not necessary to believe that the bible is 'the word of (or inspired by) "God"' to believe that Jesus was raised by God from the dead. It is possible to believe that that happened thinking that the NT records are just accounts written by people giving an honest record of what they knew about (and that it is the best explanation of those accounts). There is no need for any belief in the bible being inspired by God to get that far.I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it
Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".
Or have I misunderstood him?
No, I would not claim that. What I would ask is they they would say such things and risk their lives if they did not believe they were true. That they are true would, IMO, be the best explanation for why they believed those events happened, inc. Jesus being dead, being buried in a known location, the tomb being empty 2 days later and people, individuals and groups, meeting what they thought was the risen Christ on about a dozen occasions over the next 40 days, including sometimes eating with him).I think he believes it because he can see no other reason why it was written down, about Christ and all that, than that that was what happened. He would claim, why would they say such things and risk their lives for them etc if they weren't true.I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it
Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".
Or have I misunderstood him?
Disappointed you did not notice JK's error there, Leonard. After all we've only been discussing this stuff, what, 10 years.
I think he believes it because he can see no other reason why it was written down, about Christ and all that, than that that was what happened. He would claim, why would they say such things and risk their lives for them etc if they weren't true. And that in trying to explain things otherwise gets the thinker into implausible situations. From that everything else they say and claim has to be considered as being accurate in what he would see as a provable plausible position.
Well, as long as he's happy!
What I would ask is they they would say such things and risk their lives if they did not believe they were true
what do Christians think God is made from?
A large slice of arguing-past-each-other with a hefty dressing of misunderstanding on top.what do Christians think God is made from?
Is this question directed at people who believe that god was made? Who would they be?
]Yes, you have misunderstood me. It is not necessary to believe that the bible is 'the word of (or inspired by) "God"' to believe that Jesus was raised by God from the dead. It is possible to believe that that happened thinking that the NT records are just accounts written by people giving an honest record of what they knew about (and that it is the best explanation of those accounts). There is no need for any belief in the bible being inspired by God to get that far.
Yes, you have misunderstood me. It is not necessary to believe that the bible is 'the word of (or inspired by) "God"' to believe that Jesus was raised by God from the dead. It is possible to believe that that happened thinking that the NT records are just accounts written by people giving an honest record of what they knew about (and that it is the best explanation of those accounts). There is no need for any belief in the bible being inspired by God to get that far.I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it
Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".
Or have I misunderstood him?
Answer it one more time.... just for me.What I would ask is they they would say such things and risk their lives if they did not believe they were true
*head-desk*
If I could remove at least one standard Christian trope from all and any future discussions, it may very well be this one. It comes up so often and the reason why it's nonsense is patiently pointed out so many times ... mods, can't we do a sticky for this kind of thing, for goodness' sake, and have done with it once and for all?
Yes, you have misunderstood me. It is not necessary to believe that the bible is 'the word of (or inspired by) "God"' to believe that Jesus was raised by God from the dead. It is possible to believe that that happened thinking that the NT records are just accounts written by people giving an honest record of what they knew about (and that it is the best explanation of those accounts). There is no need for any belief in the bible being inspired by God to get that far.I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it
Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".
Or have I misunderstood him?
I accept that there are some people who honestly believe that they have seen him do miracles and who have written to that effect. Why do you ask?Yes, you have misunderstood me. It is not necessary to believe that the bible is 'the word of (or inspired by) "God"' to believe that Jesus was raised by God from the dead. It is possible to believe that that happened thinking that the NT records are just accounts written by people giving an honest record of what they knew about (and that it is the best explanation of those accounts). There is no need for any belief in the bible being inspired by God to get that far.I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it
Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".
Or have I misunderstood him?
Do you accept the same when people write about miracles performed by sai baba?
If not, why not?
AlienNo, at least some of them have been demonstrated to be tricks. Searching on Google or referring to the last time you asked me that question will show you.
Do you also accept that the best explanation is that the miracles they wrote about actually happened?
Reasons would include:
If not, why do you think people writing about a dead man coming back to life are writing about actual events?
AlienNo, at least some of them have been demonstrated to be tricks. Searching on Google or referring to the last time you asked me that question will show you.
Do you also accept that the best explanation is that the miracles they wrote about actually happened?QuoteReasons would include:
If not, why do you think people writing about a dead man coming back to life are writing about actual events?
* Jesus seems to have been a very honest man; Sai Baba has been demonstrated to be a trickster.
* (As far as I know), none of those claiming Sai Baba performed miracles are so sure of that belief that they have died for it; some early Christians did though.
* What Jesus did fitted in with the whole context of the lead up to his life in the OT and John the Baptists preaching; (as far as I know) Sai Baba just did tricks.
There may be others, but that should get you started.
Judging from your questions below, you don't seem to have understood.AlienNo, at least some of them have been demonstrated to be tricks. Searching on Google or referring to the last time you asked me that question will show you.
Do you also accept that the best explanation is that the miracles they wrote about actually happened?QuoteReasons would include:
If not, why do you think people writing about a dead man coming back to life are writing about actual events?
* Jesus seems to have been a very honest man; Sai Baba has been demonstrated to be a trickster.
* (As far as I know), none of those claiming Sai Baba performed miracles are so sure of that belief that they have died for it; some early Christians did though.
* What Jesus did fitted in with the whole context of the lead up to his life in the OT and John the Baptists preaching; (as far as I know) Sai Baba just did tricks.
There may be others, but that should get you started.
So much wrong with this that I cannot really believe you can think it reasonable!
No, I don't. I have never claimed that so why are you asking me that?
If someone is prepared to die for their beliefs, do you think they makes their beliefs any more true?
Tricks? Such as? Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
How have you ruled out tricks or faulty reporting of the reported accounts of Jesus?
That claim may be an example of confirmation bias itself.
This is clearly just confirmation bias
Judging from your questions below, you don't seem to have understood.AlienNo, at least some of them have been demonstrated to be tricks. Searching on Google or referring to the last time you asked me that question will show you.
Do you also accept that the best explanation is that the miracles they wrote about actually happened?QuoteReasons would include:
If not, why do you think people writing about a dead man coming back to life are writing about actual events?
* Jesus seems to have been a very honest man; Sai Baba has been demonstrated to be a trickster.
* (As far as I know), none of those claiming Sai Baba performed miracles are so sure of that belief that they have died for it; some early Christians did though.
* What Jesus did fitted in with the whole context of the lead up to his life in the OT and John the Baptists preaching; (as far as I know) Sai Baba just did tricks.
There may be others, but that should get you started.
So much wrong with this that I cannot really believe you can think it reasonable!QuoteNo, I don't. I have never claimed that so why are you asking me that?
If someone is prepared to die for their beliefs, do you think they makes their beliefs any more true?QuoteTricks? Such as? Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
How have you ruled out tricks or faulty reporting of the reported accounts of Jesus?
I have asked you in the past if you would show us how it was done. I have offered to supply the nails, the cross and the spear, but you have declined. Do you yet have a trick which would show us how it may have been done?
Faulty reporting? How faulty?QuoteThat claim may be an example of confirmation bias itself.
This is clearly just confirmation bias
Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
Er, you didn't mention the writings of Sai Baba. As I said above, I would discount him for any miracles or any lessons in morality as he has been shown to be a trickster. Are you suggesting that we should do otherwise?So which trick then? You suggested it may have been a trick? Which trick? Come one, BeRational. Which one? How could he have done it?Judging from your questions below, you don't seem to have understood.AlienNo, at least some of them have been demonstrated to be tricks. Searching on Google or referring to the last time you asked me that question will show you.
Do you also accept that the best explanation is that the miracles they wrote about actually happened?QuoteReasons would include:
If not, why do you think people writing about a dead man coming back to life are writing about actual events?
* Jesus seems to have been a very honest man; Sai Baba has been demonstrated to be a trickster.
* (As far as I know), none of those claiming Sai Baba performed miracles are so sure of that belief that they have died for it; some early Christians did though.
* What Jesus did fitted in with the whole context of the lead up to his life in the OT and John the Baptists preaching; (as far as I know) Sai Baba just did tricks.
There may be others, but that should get you started.
So much wrong with this that I cannot really believe you can think it reasonable!QuoteNo, I don't. I have never claimed that so why are you asking me that?
If someone is prepared to die for their beliefs, do you think they makes their beliefs any more true?QuoteTricks? Such as? Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
How have you ruled out tricks or faulty reporting of the reported accounts of Jesus?
I have asked you in the past if you would show us how it was done. I have offered to supply the nails, the cross and the spear, but you have declined. Do you yet have a trick which would show us how it may have been done?Quote
Faulty reporting? How faulty?QuoteThat claim may be an example of confirmation bias itself.
This is clearly just confirmation bias
How do you know any of it actually happened? Its just words in a book, and you quickly discount writings about sai baba.
Because it shows it was not a trick or deliberate deception by them.
Why did you mention n that early Christians died because of their beliefs? So what?
As you accept just because they are prepared to die for a belief, it says nothing about the truth of f it.Don't you read? I've already said that it does not show their belief to be true.
And you don't listen to what people say. Will you be asking me the same questions again and ignoring my answers again.
You seem to give the accounts of Jesus an easy ride as far as skeptism thus demonstrating confirmation bias
No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).
My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,
but it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.
So what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?
These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.
It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?
No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).
My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,Quotebut it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.QuoteSo what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?
These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.
It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?
No, I am not claiming that it should be treated any differently. Treat it like any other document.No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).
My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,Quotebut it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.QuoteSo what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?
These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.
It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?
Your first point in the above post still seems like special pleading to me: that the NT should be treated differently to other anecdotal accounts and that what is claimed (empty tomb etc) should be treated as historical facts because they feature in the Bible.
Why would they want to promote "the Jesus myth"? So they could get killed? So that they could endure prison, beatings, shipwrecks, hatred from others? Please answer me.
Secondly, how does propaganda not fit with this scenario? It seems like a potentially perfect fit in that you have promotional claims about Jesus being made by his supporters and/or those who wished to maintain the promotion of the Jesus myth even decades after the event, and also in the subsequent organisation of the Jesus myth - those I've seen referred to as 'church fathers' - which raises the risks of accepting arguments from authority and tradition.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH. I keep saying this. Let me say it yet again. That someone is prepared to die for a belief does not thereby make that belief correct. I have not claimed that it does. I have never claimed that it does. Why keep bringing this up?
Finally, that some believed this to the extent that they were prepared to die for their cause may say something about them but it says nothing about the truth of their cause.
It seems that a young man from Dewsbury did this just the other day - is this evidence of the truth of his cause?No, it is not. I have never claimed that it is.
No, I am not claiming that it should be treated any differently. Treat it like any other document.No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).
My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,Quotebut it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.QuoteSo what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?
These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.
It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?
Your first point in the above post still seems like special pleading to me: that the NT should be treated differently to other anecdotal accounts and that what is claimed (empty tomb etc) should be treated as historical facts because they feature in the Bible.QuoteWhy would they want to promote "the Jesus myth"? So they could get killed? So that they could endure prison, beatings, shipwrecks, hatred from others? Please answer me.
Secondly, how does propaganda not fit with this scenario? It seems like a potentially perfect fit in that you have promotional claims about Jesus being made by his supporters and/or those who wished to maintain the promotion of the Jesus myth even decades after the event, and also in the subsequent organisation of the Jesus myth - those I've seen referred to as 'church fathers' - which raises the risks of accepting arguments from authority and tradition.QuoteAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH. I keep saying this. Let me say it yet again. That someone is prepared to die for a belief does not thereby make that belief correct. I have not claimed that it does. I have never claimed that it does. Why keep bringing this up?
Finally, that some believed this to the extent that they were prepared to die for their cause may say something about them but it says nothing about the truth of their cause.QuoteIt seems that a young man from Dewsbury did this just the other day - is this evidence of the truth of his cause?No, it is not. I have never claimed that it is.
I've started marking this out in red bold type in the hope that people will read what I have written.
No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).
My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,Quotebut it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.QuoteSo what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?
These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.
It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?
...No. Firstly, please define "anecdotal" and secondly, you know full well that I believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact, i.e. it is something which actually happened. History is he study of past events, particularly in human affairs. I believe he actually rose from the dead. You know I believe that so I find your question a bit strange.
So, Alan, some things we can accept are.
1. The details of the resurrection of Jesus as presented in the NT are anecdotal claims and not historical facts: do we agree?
No, I don't. As I have said several times recently on this thread someone dying for a belief does not thereby show their belief to be true. To know whether it is true we need more information. However, their dying for a belief does indicate that they did not make it up. We need to ask why they were so sure it was true. Why do you think they were so sure?
2. Bearing in mind that you have regularly noted that it seems relevant to you that early Christians were prepared to die for their beliefs it seems you are now agreeing that they did is no more relevant to the truth of their Christian beliefs than are the deaths of non-Christian suicide bombers to their beliefs today: do we agree?
Yes, at least on their own. Again we need to ask ourselves why they are prepared to do that. Are they correct in their belief, are they genuinely mistake for some reason or whatever?
3. That people get attracted to all sorts of beliefs and are prepared to suffer for them or live their lives in particular ways isn't unique to Christians, and obvious comparison are those whose cause was/is primarily political, so that 'persecution' or specific lifestyle choices/compromises of any form isn't indicative of the truth of whatever the cause is: do we agree?
Thank you. Indeed, propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have.No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).
My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,Quotebut it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.QuoteSo what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?
These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.
It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?
You forgot this short passage to redden, Alan, fixed it for you.
...No. Firstly, please define "anecdotal" and secondly, you know full well that I believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact, i.e. it is something which actually happened. History is he study of past events, particularly in human affairs. I believe he actually rose from the dead. You know I believe that so I find your question a bit strange.
So, Alan, some things we can accept are.
1. The details of the resurrection of Jesus as presented in the NT are anecdotal claims and not historical facts: do we agree?QuoteNo, I don't. As I have said several times recently on this thread someone dying for a belief does not thereby show their belief to be true. To know whether it is true we need more information. However, their dying for a belief does indicate that they did not make it up. We need to ask why they were so sure it was true. Why do you think they were so sure?
2. Bearing in mind that you have regularly noted that it seems relevant to you that early Christians were prepared to die for their beliefs it seems you are now agreeing that they did is no more relevant to the truth of their Christian beliefs than are the deaths of non-Christian suicide bombers to their beliefs today: do we agree?QuoteYes, at least on their own. Again we need to ask ourselves why they are prepared to do that. Are they correct in their belief, are they genuinely mistake for some reason or whatever?
3. That people get attracted to all sorts of beliefs and are prepared to suffer for them or live their lives in particular ways isn't unique to Christians, and obvious comparison are those whose cause was/is primarily political, so that 'persecution' or specific lifestyle choices/compromises of any form isn't indicative of the truth of whatever the cause is: do we agree?
Thank you. Indeed, propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have.No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).
My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,Quotebut it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.QuoteSo what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?
These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.
It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?
You forgot this short passage to redden, Alan, fixed it for you.
I wonder why you wanted to highlight that though. Are you convinced by what I wrote?
Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.Thank you. Indeed, propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have.No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).
My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,Quotebut it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.QuoteSo what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?
These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.
It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?
You forgot this short passage to redden, Alan, fixed it for you.
I wonder why you wanted to highlight that though. Are you convinced by what I wrote?
I think you should read what you've written, Alan, you're dismissing propaganda as a reason, because some of these people were prepared to die for what they said and wrote. Why dismiss it for that reason if you think dying for your beliefs is ... in your words ... so what?
People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.
you know full well that I believe that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact, i.e. it is something which actually happened. History is he study of past events, particularly in human affairs. I believe he actually rose from the dead. You know I believe that so I find your question a bit strange.
Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.
Which is basically what I said!!!No, I would not claim that. What I would ask is they they would say such things and risk their lives if they did not believe they were true. That they are true would, IMO, be the best explanation for why they believed those events happened, inc. Jesus being dead, being buried in a known location, the tomb being empty 2 days later and people, individuals and groups, meeting what they thought was the risen Christ on about a dozen occasions over the next 40 days, including sometimes eating with him).I think he believes it because he can see no other reason why it was written down, about Christ and all that, than that that was what happened. He would claim, why would they say such things and risk their lives for them etc if they weren't true.I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it
Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".
Or have I misunderstood him?
Go on then where's my error?Disappointed you did not notice JK's error there, Leonard. After all we've only been discussing this stuff, what, 10 years.
I think he believes it because he can see no other reason why it was written down, about Christ and all that, than that that was what happened. He would claim, why would they say such things and risk their lives for them etc if they weren't true. And that in trying to explain things otherwise gets the thinker into implausible situations. From that everything else they say and claim has to be considered as being accurate in what he would see as a provable plausible position.
Well, as long as he's happy!
That's an interesting consideration. We see this in politics and in other highly invested activities. People who have given their all to a project (especially one of life and death) find it hard to let go and will keep on fighting for its veracity by any means. As I said we see this in politics - and in blind love - when it is obvious to others it has failed the believer will keep on flogging that died horse. Even lying and making up shit to keep the dream alive!!!Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).
My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT, but it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.
These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.
It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?
I thought the same. After all Alan's shouting about that he does not take it that if someone dies for their belief that that is proof of the veracity of their belief, he then types that above, totally contradicting himself. If the issue of dying for what you believe in is of no consequence to the truth of that belief why mention it......Alan?No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).
My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,Quotebut it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.QuoteSo what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?
These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.
It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?
You forgot this short passage to redden, Alan, fixed it for you.
This is besides the point to the issue, Alan. What was going through their heads makes no difference to the veracity of the claims we are considering here. People have died for politics and that makes no offer of life everlasting. What motivates people to even die for a cause has no bearing on the matter whatsoever. Perhaps the early Christians were just stupid...?Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.Thank you. Indeed, propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have.No, that is not the case. I have written in the past about how I became a Christian and it did not, back then, include me treating the NT as inerrant or inspired.Which trick was involved in Jesus getting flogged, nailed to a cross for 6 hours or so, found to be dead by the professional executioners and stabbed with a spear for good measure, put in a known tomb which was found to be empty two days later and then convinced people on about a dozen occasions that he had been raised from the dead, people in groups and as individuals in different situations and sometimes eating with them?
I'd have to say that I don't go down the trick route either, Alan, which seems to me to be no less demonstrable as being a reasonably certain historical fact than are the various aspects of the existing NT narrative that mention what you note above (empty tomb and all that).
My concern here is that you seem to accept these aspects as being historical facts, presumably because they are in the NT,Quotebut it seems to me that there is a clear risk that these aspects are propaganda by the supporters of Jesus: after all propaganda by supporters and/or detractors of a cause or person is known human behaviour.Yes, there is a risk. I may have got this all wrong. However, it being propaganda does not seem to fit with the scenario we have, i.e. at least some of the people supplying this information dying for what they said and wrote.QuoteSo what would their motivation have been for these alleged lies?
These aspects do seem like the kinds of things that those wishing to promote the Jesus myth might say after he was killed and stayed inconveniently dead, as humans tend to do once killed in a traumatic manner, in order to maintain the divinity myth: they could have said these things even if Jesus wasn't actually killed at all, since faked disappearances are another known feature of human behaviour.
It seems reasonable to suggest that deliberate propaganda is at the very least a known risk in any anecdotal reports so to what extent have Christians considered and excluded deliberate propaganda in relation to NT narrative?
You forgot this short passage to redden, Alan, fixed it for you.
I wonder why you wanted to highlight that though. Are you convinced by what I wrote?
I think you should read what you've written, Alan, you're dismissing propaganda as a reason, because some of these people were prepared to die for what they said and wrote. Why dismiss it for that reason if you think dying for your beliefs is ... in your words ... so what?
Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?
Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?
Yes, because they're Christians, Floo!
Oh no, wait a minute ....... No, it's because Islam's beliefs are obviously illogical and silly, not like Christianity's beliefs!
I mean who ever heard of someone being crucified and finally killed by being stabbed with a spear and then coming back to life. Silly Muslims! Oh no, wait a minute ... you're getting me all confused, Floo
Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?
Yes, because they're Christians, Floo!
Oh no, wait a minute ....... No, it's because Islam's beliefs are obviously illogical and silly, not like Christianity's beliefs!
I mean who ever heard of someone being crucified and finally killed by being stabbed with a spear and then coming back to life. Silly Muslims! Oh no, wait a minute ... you're getting me all confused, Floo
There are some thing you've missed out in your clumsy comparison between the two religions: love, forgiveness, mercy, and do to others as you would have them do to you, redemption Did you not know those things about Christianity?
If that is how you live your life, BA, then that's just great. Is it necessary though to believe a completely ridiculous set of stories to do any of that? Do you really need the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell to live a decent life?
Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?
Yes, because they're Christians, Floo!
Oh no, wait a minute ....... No, it's because Islam's beliefs are obviously illogical and silly, not like Christianity's beliefs!
I mean who ever heard of someone being crucified and finally killed by being stabbed with a spear and then coming back to life. Silly Muslims! Oh no, wait a minute ... you're getting me all confused, Floo
There are some thing you've missed out in your clumsy comparison between the two religions: love, forgiveness, mercy, and do to others as you would have them do to you, redemption Did you not know those things about Christianity?
If that is how you live your life, BA, then that's just great. Is it necessary though to believe a completely ridiculous set of stories to do any of that? Do you really need the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell to live a decent life?
Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?
Yes, because they're Christians, Floo!
Oh no, wait a minute ....... No, it's because Islam's beliefs are obviously illogical and silly, not like Christianity's beliefs!
I mean who ever heard of someone being crucified and finally killed by being stabbed with a spear and then coming back to life. Silly Muslims! Oh no, wait a minute ... you're getting me all confused, Floo
There are some thing you've missed out in your clumsy comparison between the two religions: love, forgiveness, mercy, and do to others as you would have them do to you, redemption Did you not know those things about Christianity?
If that is how you live your life, BA, then that's just great. Is it necessary though to believe a completely ridiculous set of stories to do any of that? Do you really need the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell to live a decent life?
Just something that came from the thoughts from another thread, what do Christians think God is made from; what constitutes the form of God?
If you respond with spirit then how did God manipulate the matter that forms the universe and our world? - as it clearly says in Genesis that he moulded the clay to create Adam.
Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?
Yes, because they're Christians, Floo!
Oh no, wait a minute ....... No, it's because Islam's beliefs are obviously illogical and silly, not like Christianity's beliefs!
I mean who ever heard of someone being crucified and finally killed by being stabbed with a spear and then coming back to life. Silly Muslims! Oh no, wait a minute ... you're getting me all confused, Floo
There are some thing you've missed out in your clumsy comparison between the two religions: love, forgiveness, mercy, and do to others as you would have them do to you, redemption Did you not know those things about Christianity?
If that is how you live your life, BA, then that's just great. Is it necessary though to believe a completely ridiculous set of stories to do any of that? Do you really need the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell to live a decent life?
Hey everyone, come and follow the Lord Jesus Christ so that we can all live jolly decent lives!
STRAW MAN
Jack starting threads like this :) you lot must be desperate,now
~TW~
If our posts are so easy to deal with I do wonder where TW has been for the last 500 odd posts. And after all that time that was the best he could do!
Jack starting threads like this :) you lot must be desperate,now
~TW~
Difficult for you to answer, isn't it, TW?
We can always do better than you, mate, because your posts are based on imagination, ours on facts.
That's an interesting consideration. We see this in politics and in other highly invested activities. People who have given their all to a project (especially one of life and death) find it hard to let go and will keep on fighting for its veracity by any means. As I said we see this in politics - and in blind love - when it is obvious to others it has failed the believer will keep on flogging that died horse. Even lying and making up shit to keep the dream alive!!!
AlienNo, at least some of them have been demonstrated to be tricks. Searching on Google or referring to the last time you asked me that question will show you.
Do you also accept that the best explanation is that the miracles they wrote about actually happened?QuoteReasons would include:
If not, why do you think people writing about a dead man coming back to life are writing about actual events?
* Jesus seems to have been a very honest man;
Sai Baba has been demonstrated to be a trickster.
* (As far as I know), none of those claiming Sai Baba performed miracles are so sure of that belief that they have died for it; some early Christians did though.
* What Jesus did fitted in with the whole context of the lead up to his life in the OT and John the Baptists preaching
There may be others, but that should get you started.
If he had been a trickster how would they know?AlienNo, at least some of them have been demonstrated to be tricks. Searching on Google or referring to the last time you asked me that question will show you.
Do you also accept that the best explanation is that the miracles they wrote about actually happened?QuoteReasons would include:
If not, why do you think people writing about a dead man coming back to life are writing about actual events?
* Jesus seems to have been a very honest man;
According to ChristiansQuoteSai Baba has been demonstrated to be a trickster.
Do you think that an account written by Sai Baba's followers would portray him as a trickster?Quote* (As far as I know), none of those claiming Sai Baba performed miracles are so sure of that belief that they have died for it; some early Christians did though.
According to Christians.Quote* What Jesus did fitted in with the whole context of the lead up to his life in the OT and John the Baptists preaching
You mean what Jesus is alleged to have done by Christians.QuoteThere may be others, but that should get you started.
Everything we know about Jesus was written by his followers after his death. If Jesus was a trickster or had other major character flaws, they are hardly expected to be honest about it.
If he had been a trickster how would they know?
We know how gullible people are, remember Jim Jones' cult?
People will believe in the face of almost anything if they want to.Squirrelled away for a future signature, if you don't mind ever so muchly.
I saw a programme on Jones some while back and iirc many of his followers didn't want to kill themselves but because they were trapped in South America in some 'jungle' they were essentially murdered or at least tricked into drinking the poison.
If he had been a trickster how would they know?
If you are a devoted follower of a person, the evidence is that even being given incontrovertible proof that they are a charlatan is not necessarily enough. People will believe in the face of almost anything if they want to.QuoteWe know how gullible people are, remember Jim Jones' cult?
Strangely I was thinking of bringing that up.
Jim Jones, of course, must have been telling the truth because all his followers committed suicide at his command. I expect he preached peace and love too, just like Jesus.
If you are a devoted follower of a person, the evidence is that even being given incontrovertible proof that they are a charlatan is not necessarily enough. People will believe in the face of almost anything if they want to.
Jim Jones, of course, must have been telling the truth because all his followers committed suicide at his command. I expect he preached peace and love too, just like Jesus.
People will believe in the face of almost anything if they want to.Squirrelled away for a future signature, if you don't mind ever so muchly.
I saw a programme on Jones some while back and iirc many of his followers didn't want to kill themselves but because they were trapped in South America in some 'jungle' they were essentially murdered or at least tricked into drinking the poison.
Some at least weren't willing partners and wanted to escape and live. What Jones did whilst they were in the US, and was offering them a 'new life' and the 'promise land', was to get them to pool their collective wealth which was then under his control. When he planned to go to South America none of them had any personal finance, no homes, and were basically shipped out their under duress - they were trapped, they had no choice.
I saw a programme on Jones some while back and iirc many of his followers didn't want to kill themselves but because they were trapped in South America in some 'jungle' they were essentially murdered or at least tricked into drinking the poison.
They knew they were committing suicide, except the children. Clearly they believed something to make them do it and according to Alan, that means what they believed was true.
Some at least weren't willing partners and wanted to escape and live. What Jones did whilst they were in the US, and was offering them a 'new life' and the 'promise land', was to get them to pool their collective wealth which was then under his control. When he planned to go to South America none of them had any personal finance, no homes, and were basically shipped out their under duress - they were trapped, they had no choice.
I saw a programme on Jones some while back and iirc many of his followers didn't want to kill themselves but because they were trapped in South America in some 'jungle' they were essentially murdered or at least tricked into drinking the poison.
They knew they were committing suicide, except the children. Clearly they believed something to make them do it and according to Alan, that means what they believed was true.
Many knew what the potion was and had no wish to die but Jones' henchmen forced many to do it. Many knew because Jones had a dummy run on the act to see who was 'loyal' to him.
You said 'they' not 'some'. They implies all. I don't recall those who willing followed Jones to his ultimate act as the programme I watched had the emotional survivors recounting those events and that is what tends to stick in ones mind.Some at least weren't willing partners and wanted to escape and live. What Jones did whilst they were in the US, and was offering them a 'new life' and the 'promise land', was to get them to pool their collective wealth which was then under his control. When he planned to go to South America none of them had any personal finance, no homes, and were basically shipped out their under duress - they were trapped, they had no choice.
I saw a programme on Jones some while back and iirc many of his followers didn't want to kill themselves but because they were trapped in South America in some 'jungle' they were essentially murdered or at least tricked into drinking the poison.
They knew they were committing suicide, except the children. Clearly they believed something to make them do it and according to Alan, that means what they believed was true.
Many knew what the potion was and had no wish to die but Jones' henchmen forced many to do it. Many knew because Jones had a dummy run on the act to see who was 'loyal' to him.
You miss the point totally. Some people were didn't want to do it but some did. The fact that some people willingly went to their deaths believing in Jones tells us (according to Alan) that their beliefs were true.
You said 'they' not 'some'.
They implies all. I don't recall those who willing followed Jones to his ultimate act as the programme I watched had the emotional survivors recounting those events and that is what tends to stick in ones mind.
As for Alan's puzzling logic it is like trying to squeeze clothing into a case, a little bit keeps popping out even though you are sure you have finally got the right amount to fit in it. I reckon he has a homunculus inside it pushing the clothing out!There's nothing sophisticated about what he does. He merely applies logic selectively.
Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?
Yes, because they're Christians, Floo!
Oh no, wait a minute ....... No, it's because Islam's beliefs are obviously illogical and silly, not like Christianity's beliefs!
I mean who ever heard of someone being crucified and finally killed by being stabbed with a spear and then coming back to life. Silly Muslims! Oh no, wait a minute ... you're getting me all confused, Floo
There are some thing you've missed out in your clumsy comparison between the two religions: love, forgiveness, mercy, and do to others as you would have them do to you, redemption Did you not know those things about Christianity?
If that is how you live your life, BA, then that's just great. Is it necessary though to believe a completely ridiculous set of stories to do any of that? Do you really need the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell to live a decent life?
Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?
Yes, because they're Christians, Floo!
Oh no, wait a minute ....... No, it's because Islam's beliefs are obviously illogical and silly, not like Christianity's beliefs!
I mean who ever heard of someone being crucified and finally killed by being stabbed with a spear and then coming back to life. Silly Muslims! Oh no, wait a minute ... you're getting me all confused, Floo
There are some thing you've missed out in your clumsy comparison between the two religions: love, forgiveness, mercy, and do to others as you would have them do to you, redemption Did you not know those things about Christianity?
If that is how you live your life, BA, then that's just great. Is it necessary though to believe a completely ridiculous set of stories to do any of that? Do you really need the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell to live a decent life?
You are such a negative, not to mention derisive, poster. Who said anything about "stick and carrot"? I believe in the teaching of Jesus, and to anyone with even a tiny understanding of those teachings (clearly, not you!) it is all about love. Read it up.
Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?
Yes, because they're Christians, Floo!
Oh no, wait a minute ....... No, it's because Islam's beliefs are obviously illogical and silly, not like Christianity's beliefs!
I mean who ever heard of someone being crucified and finally killed by being stabbed with a spear and then coming back to life. Silly Muslims! Oh no, wait a minute ... you're getting me all confused, Floo
There are some thing you've missed out in your clumsy comparison between the two religions: love, forgiveness, mercy, and do to others as you would have them do to you, redemption Did you not know those things about Christianity?
If that is how you live your life, BA, then that's just great. Is it necessary though to believe a completely ridiculous set of stories to do any of that? Do you really need the carrot and stick of Heaven and Hell to live a decent life?
You are such a negative, not to mention derisive, poster. Who said anything about "stick and carrot"? I believe in the teaching of Jesus, and to anyone with even a tiny understanding of those teachings (clearly, not you!) it is all about love. Read it up.
KISSY KISSY! I knew you were all heart and loved me, Bashful!
Members of ISIS are willing to die for their cause, does it mean it is true?Extreme Islamist leaders brainwash their followers to believe that the only guaranteed way to enter heaven is to be killed in a holy war, and this is why they get so many enthusiastic volunteers to become suicide bombers. The tragedy is that the bombers will discover the devasting truth that there is no short cut to heaven, but by then it will be too late.
that's what you try to claim in order to evade the hard questions.
Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.
You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.
That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.
Which is basically what I said!!![/quote ]Really. Read my last sentence again, perhaps.No, I would not claim that. What I would ask is they they would say such things and risk their lives if they did not believe they were true. That they are true would, IMO, be the best explanation for why they believed those events happened, inc. Jesus being dead, being buried in a known location, the tomb being empty 2 days later and people, individuals and groups, meeting what they thought was the risen Christ on about a dozen occasions over the next 40 days, including sometimes eating with him).I think he believes it because he can see no other reason why it was written down, about Christ and all that, than that that was what happened. He would claim, why would they say such things and risk their lives for them etc if they weren't true.I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it
Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".
Or have I misunderstood him?QuoteTo quote Bart Ehrman (about his mentor and friend, Bruce Metzger)
And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies.
Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.
However, who lied to Paul?Peter.
Who lied to Peter?
Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?Ditto. Of course, Acts is a pretty unreliable story, maybe they are fictional characters.
Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.
You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.
That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.
Belief is worthless, Alan, in this context of what is fact and true.Which is basically what I said!!![/quote ]Really. Read my last sentence again, perhaps.No, I would not claim that. What I would ask is they they would say such things and risk their lives if they did not believe they were true. That they are true would, IMO, be the best explanation for why they believed those events happened, inc. Jesus being dead, being buried in a known location, the tomb being empty 2 days later and people, individuals and groups, meeting what they thought was the risen Christ on about a dozen occasions over the next 40 days, including sometimes eating with him).I think he believes it because he can see no other reason why it was written down, about Christ and all that, than that that was what happened. He would claim, why would they say such things and risk their lives for them etc if they weren't true.I have as low opinion of Alan as anyone but he is making a valid point here. It depends on the book. He doesn't believe because a book says so, he believes the book he does because he finds it valid. He may be wrong to do so, but it is wrong to suggest it is simply because it is in 'a book' that he believes it
Presumably he believes in the Bible contents because some of the writers of it say it is the word of (or inspired by) "God".
Or have I misunderstood him?QuoteTo quote Bart Ehrman (about his mentor and friend, Bruce Metzger)
And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies.
Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.
"Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.
Yet James, Jesus' half brother didn't pipe up? See Galatians 1:18, 19. The rest of the apostles didn't say anything when Paul was with them (Galatians 2:9 and other occasions when they met)? That would be a bit lax of them.However, who lied to Paul?Peter.
What about the other of the dozen or so appearances of Jesus to individuals and groups then? That's a lot of people making up and/or genuinely deluded.QuoteWho lied to Peter?
Maybe Peter made it all up. Maybe he was genuinely deluded.
I appreciate that I still need to come back to you on that lecture at Yale (or wherever) about Acts. Have you yourself tried to reconcile the accounts that the lecturer says are not reconcilable or have you just taken his word for it?QuoteWho lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?Ditto. Of course, Acts is a pretty unreliable story, maybe they are fictional characters.
"Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?
Oh yes, definitely a risk. Why do you think it is a significant risk though (assuming you do)?Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.
You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.
That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.
Who knows, and that is the point.
The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
Alien (your 476)That's right. Abervan.
I appreciate that, but I was asked why I am a Christian. You are not convinced by the evidence, but I am.
and
I was asked why I am a Christian and this is part of it.
1} OK, point taken. I was approaching it as an argument but yes my original question was what made you convert; though weren't you a Christian in your childhood and something about a colliery disaster that made your parents question things?
How is that more appropriate?
Except that they do. For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is.
2} But I did think of something better than God in the sense that it is more appropriate, "Something".
The word God has different connotations and implications for people, by that I mean, they unconsciously attach their preconceived ideas to it. As you admit the primal cause could be anything even a force or 'mechanism' of some law or pattern of energy.No, I haven't "admitted" that. If it were something physical, the start of the universe would not be the start of the universe, if you see what I mean.
How?
No, it is not disingenuous and deceitful. I have never claimed that, say, the Kalam argument takes us to the Christian definition of God on its own, but gets us as far as above. The argument from objective morality, if correct, shows us that this "God" is a source of morality, so now we have a spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, plausibly personal, moral entity for whom the term "God" seems, to me at least, reasonable. With the bit about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, this would take us to the Christian God from that generic understanding of God.
3} 'Objective morality, if correct,...' - again big if. You can't use as an argument something which is far from shown to be even vaguely plausible. Anyway this moral element could be a separate issue, something independent of the creation act itself and not at all associated with its functional framework.
Call it what you like, but it would be timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful and plausibly personal. That's a lowest common denominator idea of God in most people's use of the word.QuoteIt does make sense. In #92 I wrote
Yes, that is what atheists tend to say. Atheists, not scientists. That was the point I was making. You wrote, "And just to point the flaw in it the claim that science says there's no explanation for the universe isn't true". I didn't make any claim about scientists. - "This is logically equivalent to an argument often put forward by atheists that if (since) God does not exist, the universe has no explanation."
Who says this? It's rubbish as it makes no sense.
"b) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, God exists and is that explanation.
i. This is logically equivalent to an argument often put forward by atheists that if (since) God does not exist, the universe has no explanation. "
If we can agree it does make sense, then I'll supply some names.[/color]
4} If some atheists do say this then they are idiots. I would amend your b) by replacing God with "Something"; and replacing God in all your philosophical arguments with "Something". The word God only truly enters the arena when one starts dealing with religion which is its domain.
And nor have I claimed it is.
You sound like a YECer arguing against evolution
5} Good punch but I'm not down nor winded. Evolution is not a religion
and is taken as a best fit for now and subject to change should further evidence show it to be not correct on some points. People do not fundamentally live, die and base their lives on it but only as a plausible explanation based on the evidence to date. For such fundamental issues as shaping ones life and principles I would need to see and have personal experience of the matters in question.Why do you think this statement of yours here is relevant. I have never argued against evolution.
As I was not there to see this Jesus fellow and all these claims about him I can only leave these details on the shelves with the rest of the history books, dipping into them for my amusement.That's rather patronising. Because you were not there to see this Jesus fellow (or Augustus Caesar or Tiberius Caesar or Napolean or Elizabeth I or Ghengis Khan am I to understand that you are uncertain about them existing and the major events of their lives?
Why is that is a better explanation?
Here I'm not arguing from experience, but that Jesus was buried in a known tomb, two days later the tomb was found to be empty and that over the course of the next 40 days individuals and groups were convinced they saw him, spoke with him and sometimes ate with him. My contention is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God is a better explanation than all the other attempted explanations put together.
6} A better explanation would be is that we just don't know how
and why these things got to be written down (or what was altered later on). We are fallible and are unable to think of every possibility that could explain an event which we never saw. Are you saying every myth and fable or whatever is true?No. That's a silly question. In any situation we are fallible and are unable to think of every possibility etc. Why do you only bring this up when speaking about Jesus? Because it would rock your world if it were true?
Really? Why do you claim this?
Then you have misunderstood probability too. Perhaps a knowledgeable non-Christian on here would explain about probability. Me doing it would run the risk of look like it being "sophistry and playing with words." If anyone does explain it, then perhaps the following will help.
7} What I meant was that probability is a myth created from mankind's point of view. Either something occurs or it doesn't. It is only our perspective on things that creates in our minds this probability stuff.
Yet you and I do this all the time in our lives? Do you know for certain that you will survive a bus trip or driving into work? You seem very inconsistent.
For this to be a good argument (that God raised Jesus from the dead), the probability of it being true needs to be higher than the probability of it not being true, i.e. >50%. On occasions people here have said that there are infinite number of possible other explanations for what is recorded in the NT (the empty tomb, etc.). That may be the case, but it is irrelevant. If the probability of those individual other explanations total less than 50%, it means that the probability of God having raised Jesus from the dead is greater than 50%. The percentages I quoted as examples, i.e. 12.5%, 6.25%, 3.125% and so on were part of a sequence where, though infinitely long, only total 25%, thus showing that it is possible to have an infinite number of other possible explanations, yet still have a total of less than 50%.
8} But how does one evaluate a value for such things, who decides that this or that explanation warrants a given value of probability. It's sheer stupidity because no one can.
Your example is restrictive and conditional on an idea of function and as such will naturally result in the result you say it will give. If I say to you you can go anywhere except Paul's cathedral and then declare you will never enter Paul's cathedral it is no big shakes is it...? The whole thing is fixed i.e. a sophistic game.Why do you think that is pertinent to what I wrote?
OK.
Would you mind restating your case on this as I am not completely sure what you are referring to.
9} Actually looking at them again there aren't any real issues worth bothering with there. They may come up later if need be but aren't worth it now.
It's called gossip and towing the party line, besides other things."Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?
...I was responding to your statement, "And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies." You made a point and I replied to it.
Belief is worthless, Alan, in this context of what is fact and true.
I've now replied to it.
And I'm still waiting for a reply for my 482.
That's pretty serious claim. It assumes you understand what I've been arguing and you may not have. You've now accused me of sophistry and being disingenuous.
And. How do you square these disingenuous games of yours, applying one rule for others and another for your own faith, with your faith's supposed honesty, sincerity and truthfulness?
But that is the point, we don't know and yet your 'mighty' God expects us to surmise and speculate on such very flimsy accounts written down 2000 years ago by some less than reliable minds. On your account and beliefs "Alice Through The Look Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years time based on your less than logical and coherent thinking.Oh yes, definitely a risk. Why do you think it is a significant risk though (assuming you do)?Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.
You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.
That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.
Who knows, and that is the point.
The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
Such an "explanation" sounds a bit naive to me. Which party line? As defined by whom?It's called gossip and towing the party line, besides other things."Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?
Why do you think he expects us to surmise and speculate? Why do you think that the accounts were flimsy? Why do you think they were written down by "less than reliable minds"? You seem to have made your mind up beforehand.But that is the point, we don't know and yet your 'mighty' God expects us to surmise and speculate on such very flimsy accounts written down 2000 years ago by some less than reliable minds. On your account and beliefs "Alice Through The Look Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years time based on your less than logical and coherent thinking.Oh yes, definitely a risk. Why do you think it is a significant risk though (assuming you do)?Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.
You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.
That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.
Who knows, and that is the point.
The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
Oh yes, definitely a risk. Why do you think it is a significant risk though (assuming you do)?Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.
You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.
That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.
Who knows, and that is the point.
The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
"Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?
"Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?
You don't know that they did ... you are just accepting the accounts that they did as true.
Yet James, Jesus' half brother didn't pipe up? See Galatians 1:18, 19. The rest of the apostles didn't say anything when Paul was with them (Galatians 2:9 and other occasions when they met)? That would be a bit lax of them.However, who lied to Paul?Peter.
What about the other of the dozen or so appearances of Jesus to individuals and groups then? That's a lot of people making up and/or genuinely deluded.
Have you yourself tried to reconcile the accounts that the lecturer says are not reconcilable or have you just taken his word for it?
So how would Peter lying to everyone produce the other records of people meeting Jesus, e.g. the women at the tomb, the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus appearing to James and so on?Yet James, Jesus' half brother didn't pipe up? See Galatians 1:18, 19. The rest of the apostles didn't say anything when Paul was with them (Galatians 2:9 and other occasions when they met)? That would be a bit lax of them.However, who lied to Paul?Peter.
Maybe they were all in on it. Maybe they were all suffering from delusion. Maybe Peter lied to all of them.
I didn't way "other dozens of people". I said "the dozen or so appearances".QuoteWhat about the other of the dozen or so appearances of Jesus to individuals and groups then? That's a lot of people making up and/or genuinely deluded.
What other dozens of people? Where is their testimony?
No, I am not saying he was lying? Why do think I was saying that?QuoteHave you yourself tried to reconcile the accounts that the lecturer says are not reconcilable or have you just taken his word for it?
Are you saying he was lying to the class? It sounds like you watched the lecture. Which part was wrong?
There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!
There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
why are you lying?There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
And their names are?There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
Simple.
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?why are you lying?There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?why are you lying?There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
why are you lying (about claims being facts)?I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?why are you lying?There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?
You're playing your games again, Alan - avoiding the issue the way politicians do. And I replied to your reply that the status of your belief is not a factor in the acquisition of the truth of your claims about Christianity. You wouldn't accept the beliefs of another religion to be proof that their religious claims where true, would you?...I was responding to your statement, "And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies." You made a point and I replied to it.
Belief is worthless, Alan, in this context of what is fact and true.
Or you have failed to understand my argument which is more fundamental to the issue at hand than yours is*, and is probably why you have missed the poignancy and subtleness of it. It does seem to me that you don't seem to have the perspicacity to see the gaping holes in your argument - no doubt blinded by your faith and personal convictions.QuoteAnd. How do you square these disingenuous games of yours, applying one rule for others and another for your own faith, with your faith's supposed honesty, sincerity and truthfulness?That's pretty serious claim. It assumes you understand what I've been arguing and you may not have. You've now accused me of sophistry and being disingenuous.
You seem to have a poor understanding of human nature (which is what my reply was based on) or a naïve belief that the early Christians must have been good and honest. People act upon their feelings and think they are following and doing the right thing but this is no guarantee that it is. You also need to factor into the equation that the existence of God was a presumed given in those days and this would have coloured how they would have judged and considered things, especially with reference to their assumed history and the oppression of the Romans in their 'holy' God given land.Such an "explanation" sounds a bit naive to me. Which party line? As defined by whom?It's called gossip and towing the party line, besides other things."Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?
So what did happen? Are you saying Jesus didn't die on the cross?I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?why are you lying?There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
It didn't happen as described in the Bible. You can't prove the resurrection has any credibility!
Which ones?why are you lying (about claims being facts)?I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?why are you lying?There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
Because what I say is true as I have explained logically and philosophically in the past. These people were like you in that they believed in something and from that emotional standpoint they moved forwards towards the conclusion of their faith based on the premise of that belief, which sets up assumptions which they would not, and could not, have questioned. You seem to think that their judgement on the matter was infallible and clear headed and that assumption has set you on the wrong course as this is as far from the truth as can be. They were far from infallible. The fact is we can't know what actually happened 2000 years ago and it is ludicrous to base one's whole life on what is mere guesswork and speculation. The fact that there were many of them is neither here nor there as some/most people, because of emotional needs, will follow and accept what the crowd says (the social norm for that group) or what some charismatic figure expresses. We see this kind of thing with ISIS and with the Japanese civilians in WWII, because of their social beliefs and culture, who committed suicide rather than be take by the Americans as prisoners.Why do you think he expects us to surmise and speculate? Why do you think that the accounts were flimsy? Why do you think they were written down by "less than reliable minds"? You seem to have made your mind up beforehand.But that is the point, we don't know and yet your 'mighty' God expects us to surmise and speculate on such very flimsy accounts written down 2000 years ago by some less than reliable minds. On your account and beliefs "Alice Through The Look Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years time based on your less than logical and coherent thinking.Oh yes, definitely a risk. Why do you think it is a significant risk though (assuming you do)?Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.
You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.
That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.
Who knows, and that is the point.
The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
Why do you think "Alice Through The Looking Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years' time? You keep bunging out these claims, but never seem to back them up.
Where have I intentionally made a false statement? That's what a lie is.why are you lying (about claims being facts)?I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?why are you lying?There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
My only claim/belief here is that no atheist will"show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Why is that a "faith position"?I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?
This is your belief, Alan, and is a faith position.
Er, that is your claim. Indistinguishable by whom? You?
This account is indistinguishable from fiction,
and it is possible than none of this actually happened in terms of historical facts.Yes, possible, but IMO very unlikely to be substantially wrong. Speaking of possibilities doesn't get us too far. What we need are probabilities.
After all, this is surely the kind of thing that propagandists for Jesus would say, wouldn't they.And that is the sort of thing an atheist would say.
So, as I have asked many times of you and others, why would they make it up? How would they get it wrong? We have 5 apparently independent reports of Jesus' death and appearances to people.
So, to keep saying, as you do, that people saw Jesus after he was thought to be dead etc etc, and challenging atheists to show you 'how to do it' assumes that 'it', happened in the first place in terms of the NT narrative presenting only historical facts, and to conclude this you would have to eliminate the tendency of humans getting it wrong or making it up.
That is incorrect. It is a possibility, but we need probabilities.
You seem unable to even grasp the possibility that it didn't happen as told, or possibly at all, and that you may be a victim of propaganda.
Perhaps you re taking the NT too literally, and in doing so avoiding the possibility that it isn't reliable.You what? The gospels are ancient autobiographies (or very similar). They tell of what people do. You are muddled up.
This is incorrect. I replied to yourYou're playing your games again, Alan - avoiding the issue the way politicians do. And I replied to your reply that the status of your belief is not a factor in the acquisition of the truth of your claims about Christianity....I was responding to your statement, "And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies." You made a point and I replied to it.
Belief is worthless, Alan, in this context of what is fact and true.
And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies.I agree that the status of my "belief is not a factor in the acquisition of the truth of your claims about Christianity". I've not claimed that.
You wouldn't accept the beliefs of another religion to be proof that their religious claims where true, would you?Correct, unless they could give me a good reason for why I should accept those beliefs. The other religions that I have looked at in depth are Islam, JWis and Mormonism and found no good reason for believing them to be true.
Because you first brought it up. It seems to me that you heard something somewhere, quoted it and got out of your depth.QuoteOr you have failed to understand my argument which is more fundamental to the issue at hand than yours is*, and is probably why you have missed the poignancy and subtleness of it. It does seem to me that you don't seem to have the perspicacity to see the gaping holes in your argument - no doubt blinded by your faith and personal convictions.QuoteAnd. How do you square these disingenuous games of yours, applying one rule for others and another for your own faith, with your faith's supposed honesty, sincerity and truthfulness?That's pretty serious claim. It assumes you understand what I've been arguing and you may not have. You've now accused me of sophistry and being disingenuous.
* Why go into the details of a case (as you like to do with your argument about the Christian manuscripts, NT and all that) when the foundational premise of the whole thing is flawed from a philosophical and logical standpoint?
No, this is incorrect. I do not believe "the early Christians must have been good and honest." I am not so naive. What I do believe is that there is no good reason to believe that their reports were other than substantially what they honestly believed. As I have asked someone earlier, what motive could they have had for making it all up?You seem to have a poor understanding of human nature (which is what my reply was based on) or a naïve belief that the early Christians must have been good and honest.Such an "explanation" sounds a bit naive to me. Which party line? As defined by whom?It's called gossip and towing the party line, besides other things."Made it up", while being true, is a harsh way to put it. I think they genuinely believed that "God" put the thought into their mind.So how did people on about a dozen occasions get it so wrong?
People act upon their feelings and think they are following and doing the right thing but this is no guarantee that it is.Absolute guarantee? No,of course not, but let's try to think this through. What reason could they realistically have had to have made it all up?
You also need to factor into the equation that the existence of God was a presumed given in those days and this would have coloured how they would have judged and considered things, especially with reference to their assumed history and the oppression of the Romans in their 'holy' God given land.So what made people think the tomb was empty? You don't need to believe in God to tell that a tomb is empty. What made them think they were talking to someone? You don't need to believe in God to do that.
What a load of old tosh. Seriously, it is. Come on, what would have been their motives for making it all up? How would they have managed to handle it with so many people? How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie? It just doesn't add up.Because what I say is true as I have explained logically and philosophically in the past. These people were like you in that they believed in something and from that emotional standpoint they moved forwards towards the conclusion of their faith based on the premise of that belief, which sets up assumptions which they would not, and could not, have questioned. You seem to think that their judgement on the matter was infallible and clear headed and that assumption has set you on the wrong course as this is as far from the truth as can be. They were far from infallible. The fact is we can't know what actually happened 2000 years ago and it is ludicrous to base one's whole life on what is mere guesswork and speculation. The fact that there were many of them is neither here nor there as some/most people, because of emotional needs, will follow and accept what the crowd says (the social norm for that group) or what some charismatic figure expresses. We see this kind of thing with ISIS and with the Japanese civilians in WWII, because of their social beliefs and culture, who committed suicide rather than be take by the Americans as prisoners.Why do you think he expects us to surmise and speculate? Why do you think that the accounts were flimsy? Why do you think they were written down by "less than reliable minds"? You seem to have made your mind up beforehand.But that is the point, we don't know and yet your 'mighty' God expects us to surmise and speculate on such very flimsy accounts written down 2000 years ago by some less than reliable minds. On your account and beliefs "Alice Through The Look Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years time based on your less than logical and coherent thinking.Oh yes, definitely a risk. Why do you think it is a significant risk though (assuming you do)?Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.
You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.
That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.
Who knows, and that is the point.
The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
Why do you think "Alice Through The Looking Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years' time? You keep bunging out these claims, but never seem to back them up.
In representing claims as facts, as has been pointed out to you that this is what you are doing, (multiple times)You have alleged multiple times that what I have claimed to be true is untrue. So what? You alleging stuff doesn't thereby make you correct and turn me into a liar. Do you really not understand that?
So how would Peter lying to everyone produce the other records of people meeting Jesus, e.g. the women at the tomb, the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus appearing to James and so on?
QuoteAre you saying he was lying to the class? It sounds like you watched the lecture. Which part was wrong?No, I am not saying he was lying? Why do think I was saying that?
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
And their names are?There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
Simple.
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
and he lies again. I have told you multiple times that arguing claims as true is a lie, if you continue to do it, and you continue to do it and then you lie about that.In representing claims as facts, as has been pointed out to you that this is what you are doing, (multiple times)You have alleged multiple times that what I have claimed to be true is untrue. So what? You alleging stuff doesn't thereby make you correct and turn me into a liar. Do you really not understand that?
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
Thirteen of my mates saw you. Also five hundred and one other people. Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.
That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.
How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?What is really going on with the people who so regularly wheel out this vapid tosh? I mean, given how often it's employed as some sort of killer point, I find it impossible to believe that any reasonably intelligent, normally-constituted adult human being can be unaware of the counter to such a feeble point - people don't as far as I'm aware die for something they know to be a lie (that's to say a conscious and deliberate untruth), but we've abundant evidence of people dying for what they sincerely believe to be true but about which we consider them to be mistaken or otherwise misinformed. Sincerity of belief does not, has never and will never be any hallmark of correctness of belief.
I didn't see BR resurrecting personally, but I saw Jeremy's wife see it.
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
Thirteen of my mates saw you. Also five hundred and one other people. Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.
That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
Thirteen of my mates saw you. Also five hundred and one other people. Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.
That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.
Nonsense.
I didn't see BR resurrecting personally, but I saw Jeremy's wife see it.
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
Thirteen of my mates saw you. Also five hundred and one other people. Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.
That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.
I didn't see BR resurrecting personally, but I saw Jeremy's wife see it.
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
Thirteen of my mates saw you. Also five hundred and one other people. Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.
That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.
Imbecilic comments always attract like!
I didn't see BR resurrecting personally, but I saw Jeremy's wife see it.
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
Thirteen of my mates saw you. Also five hundred and one other people. Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.
That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.
Imbecilic comments always attract like!
Why is that you are sceptical of my claims but accept the same claims from the bible?
What extra information do you get from the bible
On what basis?
On what basis is it decided that witnesses are reliable?On what basis?
On the same basis on which so much of history, ancient history at any rate,is accepted: the testimony of reliable witnesses.
actually you don't, because you want to throw out 4/5 of the BibleI didn't see BR resurrecting personally, but I saw Jeremy's wife see it.
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
Thirteen of my mates saw you. Also five hundred and one other people. Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.
That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.
Imbecilic comments always attract like!
Why is that you are sceptical of my claims but accept the same claims from the bible?
What extra information do you get from the bible
I prefer to accept Biblical testimony than your amateur take..
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
Thirteen of my mates saw you. Also five hundred and one other people. Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.
That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.
Nonsense.
On what basis is it decided that witnesses are reliable?On what basis?
On the same basis on which so much of history, ancient history at any rate,is accepted: the testimony of reliable witnesses.
actually you don't, because you want to throw out 4/5 of the BibleI didn't see BR resurrecting personally, but I saw Jeremy's wife see it.
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
Thirteen of my mates saw you. Also five hundred and one other people. Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.
That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.
Imbecilic comments always attract like!
Why is that you are sceptical of my claims but accept the same claims from the bible?
What extra information do you get from the bible
I prefer to accept Biblical testimony than your amateur take..
And are you familiar with the reams of evidence which demonstrates how scarily unreliable so-called eyewitness testiony actually is?
And are you familiar with the reams of evidence which demonstrates how scarily unreliable so-called eyewitness testiony actually is?
Such as?
And are you familiar with the reams of evidence which demonstrates how scarily unreliable so-called eyewitness testiony actually is?
Such as?
http://bfy.tw/XUl
Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
Alan, people said Ghandi healed the sick by just touching them. People get carried away when someone special comes along and start to exaggerate things to impress others about how special that person is to them. And again emotional needs play a part in all this; looking for meaning and security in one's life.So what did happen? Are you saying Jesus didn't die on the cross?I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?why are you lying?There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
It didn't happen as described in the Bible. You can't prove the resurrection has any credibility!
And are you familiar with the reams of evidence which demonstrates how scarily unreliable so-called eyewitness testiony actually is?
Such as?
To your last point, what do you think I brought up and then got out of my depth with?This is incorrect. I replied to yourYou're playing your games again, Alan - avoiding the issue the way politicians do. And I replied to your reply that the status of your belief is not a factor in the acquisition of the truth of your claims about Christianity....I was responding to your statement, "And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies." You made a point and I replied to it.
Belief is worthless, Alan, in this context of what is fact and true.QuoteAnd incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies.I agree that the status of my "belief is not a factor in the acquisition of the truth of your claims about Christianity". I've not claimed that.QuoteYou wouldn't accept the beliefs of another religion to be proof that their religious claims where true, would you?Correct, unless they could give me a good reason for why I should accept those beliefs. The other religions that I have looked at in depth are Islam, JWis and Mormonism and found no good reason for believing them to be true.
So what?QuoteBecause you first brought it up. It seems to me that you heard something somewhere, quoted it and got out of your depth.QuoteOr you have failed to understand my argument which is more fundamental to the issue at hand than yours is*, and is probably why you have missed the poignancy and subtleness of it. It does seem to me that you don't seem to have the perspicacity to see the gaping holes in your argument - no doubt blinded by your faith and personal convictions.QuoteAnd. How do you square these disingenuous games of yours, applying one rule for others and another for your own faith, with your faith's supposed honesty, sincerity and truthfulness?That's pretty serious claim. It assumes you understand what I've been arguing and you may not have. You've now accused me of sophistry and being disingenuous.
* Why go into the details of a case (as you like to do with your argument about the Christian manuscripts, NT and all that) when the foundational premise of the whole thing is flawed from a philosophical and logical standpoint?
And there it is again that lack of understanding of human nature and what people do on occasions. They did not think and perceive the world as we do with our western education. God and all that was a given and which coloured their views and outlook. They were looking for a messiah before this Jesus fellow came along.People act upon their feelings and think they are following and doing the right thing but this is no guarantee that it is.Absolute guarantee? No,of course not, but let's try to think this through. What reason could they realistically have had to have made it all up?
What makes you think that it happened at all? Do believe everything that people wrote in history?QuoteYou also need to factor into the equation that the existence of God was a presumed given in those days and this would have coloured how they would have judged and considered things, especially with reference to their assumed history and the oppression of the Romans in their 'holy' God given land.So what made people think the tomb was empty? You don't need to believe in God to tell that a tomb is empty. What made them think they were talking to someone? You don't need to believe in God to do that.
Why do you think they are not historically credible? Is it because there are contradictions? If so, please demonstrate them. If not, what is it please?So how would Peter lying to everyone produce the other records of people meeting Jesus, e.g. the women at the tomb, the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus appearing to James and so on?
What records? Do you mean the stories in the Bible? You do understand they are not historically credible, don't you?
That's correct. I don't think he was lying though. Lying is making an intentionally false statement.QuoteQuoteAre you saying he was lying to the class? It sounds like you watched the lecture. Which part was wrong?No, I am not saying he was lying? Why do think I was saying that?
Your last post implied you didn't think he was convincing.
We have the names of several witnesses there. What are the names of your people?And their names are?There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
Simple.
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
Why do you need names?
You do not want to check or something.
You accept claims of witnesses in the bible without being able to check
Look up the definition of "lie" in a dictionary.and he lies again. I have told you multiple times that arguing claims as true is a lie, if you continue to do it, and you continue to do it and then you lie about that.In representing claims as facts, as has been pointed out to you that this is what you are doing, (multiple times)You have alleged multiple times that what I have claimed to be true is untrue. So what? You alleging stuff doesn't thereby make you correct and turn me into a liar. Do you really not understand that?
Er, that's what I've said.How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?What is really going on with the people who so regularly wheel out this vapid tosh? I mean, given how often it's employed as some sort of killer point, I find it impossible to believe that any reasonably intelligent, normally-constituted adult human being can be unaware of the counter to such a feeble point - people don't as far as I'm aware die for something they know to be a lie (that's to say a conscious and deliberate untruth), but we've abundant evidence of people dying for what they sincerely believe to be true but about which we consider them to be mistaken or otherwise misinformed. Sincerity of belief does not, has never and will never be any hallmark of correctness of belief.
Or you haven't read what I and others have claimed. If you disagree, please find one of my posts which says that anyone dying for what they believed in means that belief was correct.
This has been pointed out so many, many times, by me and by numerousothers, that I can only surmise what when somebody proffers this perfectly reasonable point, some sort of intellectual roller shutter door comes down in the brains of certain religionists such that they don't see it or are unable to process it, and can be found shortly thereafter using it all over again as though they'd never encountered any challenge to it whatever.
Perhaps somebody can comment on what's going on, because I for one am heartily sick of seeing this zombie pseudo-point pop up time after time.
You saw Jeremy's wife see it? Is that meant to be parallel to any Christian claim?I didn't see BR resurrecting personally, but I saw Jeremy's wife see it.
I died last week for 3 days and came back.
There were hundreds of witnesses.
Thirteen of my mates saw you. Also five hundred and one other people. Lastly I saw you and so did my wife.
That makes your resurrection more credible than that of Jesus.
AlanEasy to fabricate? How would they do that? Please give us a viable scenario (since it would have been so easy).
You are special pleading for Jesus again and are failing to address to possibility that all the elements that you keep trotting out, and are highly credulous about, could be a wholly fictional narrative written at the earliest decades post-hoc by biased or credulous people - for instance your comment about 'We have 5 apparently independent reports of Jesus' death and appearances to people.' would be easy to fabricate, so to accept this narrative as it stands is a faith position because the narrative contains only claims.
And their motive would have been what?
Another point you mention is the motives of the NT writers - how do you know that their motive wasn't create propaganda about their inconveniently dead leader?
Why would I need to collect and analyse supernatural data?
Since you mention probability you'll need to explain how you collect and analyse supernatural data: for instance is the investigation of miracles best suited to parametric or non-parametric statistical tests, or are you using probability as code for what you would like to be true?
Your whole premise is based on speculation and your ability to correctly guess how all this came about. We just can't figure out with our limited minds all the possibilities involved here for why this came about. And these accounts were written 30 years after the claimed events. By that time all manner of myths could have been generated about the tomb and this and that...What a load of old tosh. Seriously, it is. Come on, what would have been their motives for making it all up? How would they have managed to handle it with so many people? How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie? It just doesn't add up.Because what I say is true as I have explained logically and philosophically in the past. These people were like you in that they believed in something and from that emotional standpoint they moved forwards towards the conclusion of their faith based on the premise of that belief, which sets up assumptions which they would not, and could not, have questioned. You seem to think that their judgement on the matter was infallible and clear headed and that assumption has set you on the wrong course as this is as far from the truth as can be. They were far from infallible. The fact is we can't know what actually happened 2000 years ago and it is ludicrous to base one's whole life on what is mere guesswork and speculation. The fact that there were many of them is neither here nor there as some/most people, because of emotional needs, will follow and accept what the crowd says (the social norm for that group) or what some charismatic figure expresses. We see this kind of thing with ISIS and with the Japanese civilians in WWII, because of their social beliefs and culture, who committed suicide rather than be take by the Americans as prisoners.Why do you think he expects us to surmise and speculate? Why do you think that the accounts were flimsy? Why do you think they were written down by "less than reliable minds"? You seem to have made your mind up beforehand.But that is the point, we don't know and yet your 'mighty' God expects us to surmise and speculate on such very flimsy accounts written down 2000 years ago by some less than reliable minds. On your account and beliefs "Alice Through The Look Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years time based on your less than logical and coherent thinking.Oh yes, definitely a risk. Why do you think it is a significant risk though (assuming you do)?Agreed they might have been lied to. However, who lied to Paul? Who lied to Peter? Who lied to Stephen? Who lied to James the (half) brother of Jesus?Eh? People rarely die willingly for what they know to be a lie. That is my point.
You are missing an obvious point, Alan: people may have been killed for what they genuinely believed to be true (e.g. they didn't consider that they had been lied to) but, nevertheless, they may have been lied to but in good faith they believed the lies.
That they may have been lied to but were unaware of this is a separate matter - and is of course one of the risks of effective propaganda.
Who knows, and that is the point.
The point is that there is an unavoidable risk of lies or mistake in anecdotal accounts from whatever source, since lies and mistakes are known aspects of human behaviour, and there is also the risk that any mistakes or lies might be accepted 'in good faith' by followers of Jesus. These are both important aspects that must be considered as being possibilities that it would be essential to meaningfully exclude before reaching for the divine card.
Why do you think "Alice Through The Looking Glass" would be taken as fact in 2000 years' time? You keep bunging out these claims, but never seem to back them up.
Was the tomb empty or not? Did people claim to have seen Jesus on about a dozen occasions or not? Those are the questions which need answering and if you answer them honestly, as I hope you will, it will turn your life upside down.
So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
Same question as in the one immediately above.Alan, people said Ghandi healed the sick by just touching them. People get carried away when someone special comes along and start to exaggerate things to impress others about how special that person is to them. And again emotional needs play a part in all this; looking for meaning and security in one's life.So what did happen? Are you saying Jesus didn't die on the cross?I am not lying. No atheist will "show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb." Are you saying there is an atheist who will show me how to do it? If so, please name that person? Is it you? Will you show me how to do it?why are you lying?There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
It didn't happen as described in the Bible. You can't prove the resurrection has any credibility!
...When you wrote
To your last point, what do you think I brought up and then got out of my depth with?
I have said you have failed to understand my point which undermines all your arguments because it is a philosophical foundational aspect of correct thinking. Or to put it another way you have been subject to a school boy's error.
And incidentally, the first gospel was written around 30years after the alleged events. We don't have the originals and know that mistakes were made when copying them out, and alterations were made for expedient reasons. One of the foundations of your position is precariously perched on the assumption that people are honest and don't cook the books for their own personal beliefs and ideologies.I gave an answer to you on that and then you replied that it was pointless talking about such stuff, stuff you had brought up.
Look up the definition of "lie" in a dictionary.and he lies again. I have told you multiple times that arguing claims as true is a lie, if you continue to do it, and you continue to do it and then you lie about that.In representing claims as facts, as has been pointed out to you that this is what you are doing, (multiple times)You have alleged multiple times that what I have claimed to be true is untrue. So what? You alleging stuff doesn't thereby make you correct and turn me into a liar. Do you really not understand that?
And he got killed.And there it is again that lack of understanding of human nature and what people do on occasions. They did not think and perceive the world as we do with our western education. God and all that was a given and which coloured their views and outlook. They were looking for a messiah before this Jesus fellow came along.People act upon their feelings and think they are following and doing the right thing but this is no guarantee that it is.Absolute guarantee? No,of course not, but let's try to think this through. What reason could they realistically have had to have made it all up?
When the witnesses believed they were talking and sometimes eating with Jesus after he had been killed. What is your explanation of that?QuoteWhat makes you think that it happened at all? Do believe everything that people wrote in history?QuoteYou also need to factor into the equation that the existence of God was a presumed given in those days and this would have coloured how they would have judged and considered things, especially with reference to their assumed history and the oppression of the Romans in their 'holy' God given land.So what made people think the tomb was empty? You don't need to believe in God to tell that a tomb is empty. What made them think they were talking to someone? You don't need to believe in God to do that.
Talking to someone? What this about?
So you claim, but have not demonstrated.Your whole premise is based on speculation...What a load of old tosh. Seriously, it is. Come on, what would have been their motives for making it all up? How would they have managed to handle it with so many people? How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie? It just doesn't add up.
Because what I say is true as I have explained logically and philosophically in the past. These people were like you in that they believed in something and from that emotional standpoint they moved forwards towards the conclusion of their faith based on the premise of that belief, which sets up assumptions which they would not, and could not, have questioned. You seem to think that their judgement on the matter was infallible and clear headed and that assumption has set you on the wrong course as this is as far from the truth as can be. They were far from infallible. The fact is we can't know what actually happened 2000 years ago and it is ludicrous to base one's whole life on what is mere guesswork and speculation. The fact that there were many of them is neither here nor there as some/most people, because of emotional needs, will follow and accept what the crowd says (the social norm for that group) or what some charismatic figure expresses. We see this kind of thing with ISIS and with the Japanese civilians in WWII, because of their social beliefs and culture, who committed suicide rather than be take by the Americans as prisoners.
Was the tomb empty or not? Did people claim to have seen Jesus on about a dozen occasions or not? Those are the questions which need answering and if you answer them honestly, as I hope you will, it will turn your life upside down.
and your ability to correctly guess how all this came about.We just can't figure out with our limited minds all the possibilities involved here for why this came about.[/quote]The same goes for lots of things, e.g. in physics, yet we come to conclusions.
And these accounts were written 30 years after the claimed events. By that time all manner of myths could have been generated about the tomb and this and that...How?
100%? I agree. However, I take it you accept that things like the Armada and the Battle of Hastings and the Roman invasion of Britain happened. Why so unsure on this one (apart from, perhaps, it making great claims on you personally if it is true)?
Your questions are superfluous because they can't be answered with 100% confirmation, as all historical accounts can't be, else all historians past, present and future would all agree on the way historical events have proceeded. But they don't and there is a reason for this.
8)I believe the claims about Christianity are correct, that they are true, that the core things of Jesus' life, death and resurrection actually happened. I might be wrong, but that is what I believe. Therefore, I may be wrong, but I am not lying.Look up the definition of "lie" in a dictionary.and he lies again. I have told you multiple times that arguing claims as true is a lie, if you continue to do it, and you continue to do it and then you lie about that.In representing claims as facts, as has been pointed out to you that this is what you are doing, (multiple times)You have alleged multiple times that what I have claimed to be true is untrue. So what? You alleging stuff doesn't thereby make you correct and turn me into a liar. Do you really not understand that?
You know these are claims and you are presenting them as facts which is a deliberate untruth.
When the witnesses believed they were talking and sometimes eating with Jesus after he had been killed. What is your explanation of that?
8)I believe the claims about Christianity are correct, that they are true, that the core things of Jesus' life, death and resurrection actually happened. I might be wrong, but that is what I believe. Therefore, I may be wrong, but I am not lying.Look up the definition of "lie" in a dictionary.and he lies again. I have told you multiple times that arguing claims as true is a lie, if you continue to do it, and you continue to do it and then you lie about that.In representing claims as facts, as has been pointed out to you that this is what you are doing, (multiple times)You have alleged multiple times that what I have claimed to be true is untrue. So what? You alleging stuff doesn't thereby make you correct and turn me into a liar. Do you really not understand that?
You know these are claims and you are presenting them as facts which is a deliberate untruth.
So how did there come to be reports, largely independent, by at least 5 authors of people on about a dozen occasions being convinced they had seen and sometimes eaten with Jesus after his death. Come on, Gordon. Give us some specifics of how we may reasonably have got those accounts. You keep telling me I am wrong. Give us a plausible route to us having those accounts and them not being true.When the witnesses believed they were talking and sometimes eating with Jesus after he had been killed. What is your explanation of that?
That it may not be true, to the extent of being propaganda added decades later: propaganda happens, so this is a possibility.
The problem you seem unable to even comprehend is that the resurrection claims in the NT may be not be true, and that trotting out claims as facts is special pleading pure and simple. You may believe this on a personal basis but you do so without good grounds until you deal, as opposed to gloss over, the very real problem of human artifice.
I believe them to be true; you do not. That does not make me a liar.8)I believe the claims about Christianity are correct, that they are true, that the core things of Jesus' life, death and resurrection actually happened. I might be wrong, but that is what I believe. Therefore, I may be wrong, but I am not lying.Look up the definition of "lie" in a dictionary.and he lies again. I have told you multiple times that arguing claims as true is a lie, if you continue to do it, and you continue to do it and then you lie about that.In representing claims as facts, as has been pointed out to you that this is what you are doing, (multiple times)You have alleged multiple times that what I have claimed to be true is untrue. So what? You alleging stuff doesn't thereby make you correct and turn me into a liar. Do you really not understand that?
You know these are claims and you are presenting them as facts which is a deliberate untruth.
You are presenting them as facts, not claims that you believe. That is a deliberate untruth
The same goes for lots of things, e.g. in physics, yet we come to conclusions.So you claim, but have not demonstrated.Your whole premise is based on speculation...What a load of old tosh. Seriously, it is. Come on, what would have been their motives for making it all up? How would they have managed to handle it with so many people? How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie? It just doesn't add up.
Because what I say is true as I have explained logically and philosophically in the past. These people were like you in that they believed in something and from that emotional standpoint they moved forwards towards the conclusion of their faith based on the premise of that belief, which sets up assumptions which they would not, and could not, have questioned. You seem to think that their judgement on the matter was infallible and clear headed and that assumption has set you on the wrong course as this is as far from the truth as can be. They were far from infallible. The fact is we can't know what actually happened 2000 years ago and it is ludicrous to base one's whole life on what is mere guesswork and speculation. The fact that there were many of them is neither here nor there as some/most people, because of emotional needs, will follow and accept what the crowd says (the social norm for that group) or what some charismatic figure expresses. We see this kind of thing with ISIS and with the Japanese civilians in WWII, because of their social beliefs and culture, who committed suicide rather than be take by the Americans as prisoners.
Was the tomb empty or not? Did people claim to have seen Jesus on about a dozen occasions or not? Those are the questions which need answering and if you answer them honestly, as I hope you will, it will turn your life upside down.Quoteand your ability to correctly guess how all this came about.We just can't figure out with our limited minds all the possibilities involved here for why this came about.
And these accounts were written 30 years after the claimed events. By that time all manner of myths could have been generated about the tomb and this and that...How?
100%? I agree. However, I take it you accept that things like the Armada and the Battle of Hastings and the Roman invasion of Britain happened. Why so unsure on this one (apart from, perhaps, it making great claims on you personally if it is true)?
Your questions are superfluous because they can't be answered with 100% confirmation, as all historical accounts can't be, else all historians past, present and future would all agree on the way historical events have proceeded. But they don't and there is a reason for this.
I believe them to be true; you do not. That does not make me a liar.8)I believe the claims about Christianity are correct, that they are true, that the core things of Jesus' life, death and resurrection actually happened. I might be wrong, but that is what I believe. Therefore, I may be wrong, but I am not lying.Look up the definition of "lie" in a dictionary.and he lies again. I have told you multiple times that arguing claims as true is a lie, if you continue to do it, and you continue to do it and then you lie about that.In representing claims as facts, as has been pointed out to you that this is what you are doing, (multiple times)You have alleged multiple times that what I have claimed to be true is untrue. So what? You alleging stuff doesn't thereby make you correct and turn me into a liar. Do you really not understand that?
You know these are claims and you are presenting them as facts which is a deliberate untruth.
You are presenting them as facts, not claims that you believe. That is a deliberate untruth
...Yes, thanks. So how many independent witnesses do we have and do we have any good reason to believe them?
North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il is the best golfer in the world, hands down. On his first ever trip to the golf course, he shot 38-under par, including 5 hole-in-ones! This is reported by the government controlled media. He routinely shoots 3 or 4 hole-in-ones every time out.
Not quite as old as your examples, Alan. Do you not have even a niggling doubt about this report,
...Yes, I know they are claims. Claims can be correct. I believe those claims to be correct. You make certain claims you believe to be correct and you made some during the discussion on the Scottish independence vote. Some I think were incorrect. That doesn't make you a liar.
And I am not saying that you believing them to be true is you lying. I am saying that in presenting them as facts when you know they are claims (even that you believe) is lying.
...Yes, I know they are claims. Claims can be correct. I believe those claims to be correct. You make certain claims you believe to be correct and you made some during the discussion on the Scottish independence vote. Some I think were incorrect. That doesn't make you a liar.
And I am not saying that you believing them to be true is you lying. I am saying that in presenting them as facts when you know they are claims (even that you believe) is lying.
So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
Where is his body now?
...Yes, thanks. So how many independent witnesses do we have and do we have any good reason to believe them?
North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il is the best golfer in the world, hands down. On his first ever trip to the golf course, he shot 38-under par, including 5 hole-in-ones! This is reported by the government controlled media. He routinely shoots 3 or 4 hole-in-ones every time out.
Not quite as old as your examples, Alan. Do you not have even a niggling doubt about this report,
...Yes, I know they are claims. Claims can be correct. I believe those claims to be correct. You make certain claims you believe to be correct and you made some during the discussion on the Scottish independence vote. Some I think were incorrect. That doesn't make you a liar.
And I am not saying that you believing them to be true is you lying. I am saying that in presenting them as facts when you know they are claims (even that you believe) is lying.
...Yes, I know they are claims. Claims can be correct. I believe those claims to be correct. You make certain claims you believe to be correct and you made some during the discussion on the Scottish independence vote. Some I think were incorrect. That doesn't make you a liar.
And I am not saying that you believing them to be true is you lying. I am saying that in presenting them as facts when you know they are claims (even that you believe) is lying.
It would if NS was clearly portraying claims as being facts, which as I recall he wasn't.
That Jesus was resurrected is a claim: it is clearly not a fact since there is nothing other than claims involved in the NT narrative about it. Claims are easily fabricated, and especially post-hoc, compared to facts that (being factual) can subjected to investigation, which creates a problem for you guys since 'supernatural fact' is an oxymoron without a suitable investigatory method.
You are over-estimating the value of the NT claims, again, and that you choose to believe these claims (empty tombs etc) doesn't convert them into facts, and to portray claims as being facts is a misrepresentation..
It didn't happen as described in the Bible.
...Yes, I know they are claims. Claims can be correct. I believe those claims to be correct. You make certain claims you believe to be correct and you made some during the discussion on the Scottish independence vote. Some I think were incorrect. That doesn't make you a liar.
And I am not saying that you believing them to be true is you lying. I am saying that in presenting them as facts when you know they are claims (even that you believe) is lying.
It would if NS was clearly portraying claims as being facts, which as I recall he wasn't.
That Jesus was resurrected is a claim: it is clearly not a fact since there is nothing other than claims involved in the NT narrative about it. Claims are easily fabricated, and especially post-hoc, compared to facts that (being factual) can subjected to investigation, which creates a problem for you guys since 'supernatural fact' is an oxymoron without a suitable investigatory method.
You are over-estimating the value of the NT claims, again, and that you choose to believe these claims (empty tombs etc) doesn't convert them into facts, and to portray claims as being facts is a misrepresentation..
So Gordon you give me the impression you are afraid that this Jesus was resurrected and the story is true.But you and your friends are clutching at straws and every excuse to downgrade the story and say it was a hoax.What evidence do you have to prove it was a hoax and why would this be.
~TW~
Why do you think they are not historically credible?So how would Peter lying to everyone produce the other records of people meeting Jesus, e.g. the women at the tomb, the disciples on the road to Emmaus, Jesus appearing to James and so on?
What records? Do you mean the stories in the Bible? You do understand they are not historically credible, don't you?
That's correct. I don't think he was lying though. Lying is making an intentionally false statement.
As I mentioned earlier, I've started a separate thread on this.
It's just stories Alan. We might as well ask why people saw and sometimes ate with Harry Potter.So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.There are plenty of religious con men out there today who convince people that they are seeing what they aren't, Benny Hinn is a case in point!OK, you show me how to get crucified, get buried in a tomb and then two days later appear to people right as rain and have an empty tomb.
Why will no atheists show me how this was done?
Nice to see you have such a low opinion of Alan's intelligence that you think he gets mixed up in that way.It didn't happen as described in the Bible.
Is that a claim or a fact? NS will call you a liar if you keep on getting them mixed up, floo!
...Yes, I know they are claims. Claims can be correct. I believe those claims to be correct. You make certain claims you believe to be correct and you made some during the discussion on the Scottish independence vote. Some I think were incorrect. That doesn't make you a liar.
And I am not saying that you believing them to be true is you lying. I am saying that in presenting them as facts when you know they are claims (even that you believe) is lying.
It would if NS was clearly portraying claims as being facts, which as I recall he wasn't.
That Jesus was resurrected is a claim: it is clearly not a fact since there is nothing other than claims involved in the NT narrative about it. Claims are easily fabricated, and especially post-hoc, compared to facts that (being factual) can subjected to investigation, which creates a problem for you guys since 'supernatural fact' is an oxymoron without a suitable investigatory method.
You are over-estimating the value of the NT claims, again, and that you choose to believe these claims (empty tombs etc) doesn't convert them into facts, and to portray claims as being facts is a misrepresentation..
So Gordon you give me the impression you are afraid that this Jesus was resurrected and the story is true.But you and your friends are clutching at straws and every excuse to downgrade the story and say it was a hoax.What evidence do you have to prove it was a hoax and why would this be.
~TW~
It is a myth, TW, and without substantive evidence (as opposed to claim) it is indistinguishable from fiction and, as such,
really isn't a serious proposition, so it remains a myth.
Your impression is wrong, TW, since I'm no more 'afraid' of taking the resurrection of Jesus aspect of the NT seriously than I am about taking seriously the possibility that the plot-line of 'Topsy and Tim go shopping with Mummy' is actually true in reality, and in every respect of elements of the story!
Both appear to be fiction, albeit that the latter is at least grounded in reality.
You are not thinking straight Gordon.I must correct that you are not thinking full stop.I would say the 2nd beast has you well and truly in its grip you have it's mark 666 .
Goodnight.
~TW~
Mary Magdalene, the 11, Cleopas and his travelling companion, James (the Lord's half brother)....Yes, thanks. So how many independent witnesses do we have and do we have any good reason to believe them?
North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il is the best golfer in the world, hands down. On his first ever trip to the golf course, he shot 38-under par, including 5 hole-in-ones! This is reported by the government controlled media. He routinely shoots 3 or 4 hole-in-ones every time out.
Not quite as old as your examples, Alan. Do you not have even a niggling doubt about this report,
Exactly, Alan, have you any for the Resurrection? I'm sure if you go over to N Korea, they'll provide you with as many as you'll find in the Bible to back up that story.
Mary Magdalene, the 11, Cleopas and his travelling companion, James (the Lord's half brother)....Yes, thanks. So how many independent witnesses do we have and do we have any good reason to believe them?
North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il is the best golfer in the world, hands down. On his first ever trip to the golf course, he shot 38-under par, including 5 hole-in-ones! This is reported by the government controlled media. He routinely shoots 3 or 4 hole-in-ones every time out.
Not quite as old as your examples, Alan. Do you not have even a niggling doubt about this report,
Exactly, Alan, have you any for the Resurrection? I'm sure if you go over to N Korea, they'll provide you with as many as you'll find in the Bible to back up that story.
Now tell me the names of those in North Korea.
the 11,
Nice to see you have such a low opinion of Alan's intelligence that you think he gets mixed up in that way.It didn't happen as described in the Bible.
Is that a claim or a fact? NS will call you a liar if you keep on getting them mixed up, floo!
Alien previously known as AlanNice to see you have such a low opinion of Alan's intelligence that you think he gets mixed up in that way.It didn't happen as described in the Bible.
Is that a claim or a fact? NS will call you a liar if you keep on getting them mixed up, floo!
Who is Alan?
If the deity is male it is made from slugs and snails and puppy dogs tails! ;D ;D ;DWhat are little boys made of?
Slugs and snails, and puppy dogs tails,
That's what little boys are made of.
What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice and all things nice,
That's what little girls are made of.
Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith! :)
Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith! :)
Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.
Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith! :)
Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.
Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith! :)
Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.
Thanks darling! ;D
I have never claimed to have great intelligence, but at least I recognise the fact unlike some! ;D
Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith! :)
Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.
How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?And how do you know that they knew it wasn't a lie? All you have to gauge this is a book written 2000 years ago.
You have no proof that they did!!! All you have is that some people wrote that, which proves nothing. All you have is speculation!!!Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?
And he got killedAnd he got killed.And there it is again that lack of understanding of human nature and what people do on occasions. They did not think and perceive the world as we do with our western education. God and all that was a given and which coloured their views and outlook. They were looking for a messiah before this Jesus fellow came along.People act upon their feelings and think they are following and doing the right thing but this is no guarantee that it is.Absolute guarantee? No,of course not, but let's try to think this through. What reason could they realistically have had to have made it all up?QuoteWhen the witnesses believed they were talking and sometimes eating with Jesus after he had been killed. What is your explanation of that?QuoteWhat makes you think that it happened at all? Do believe everything that people wrote in history?QuoteYou also need to factor into the equation that the existence of God was a presumed given in those days and this would have coloured how they would have judged and considered things, especially with reference to their assumed history and the oppression of the Romans in their 'holy' God given land.So what made people think the tomb was empty? You don't need to believe in God to tell that a tomb is empty. What made them think they were talking to someone? You don't need to believe in God to do that.
Talking to someone? What this about?
Your whole premise is based on speculation...What a load of old tosh. Seriously, it is. Come on, what would have been their motives for making it all up? How would they have managed to handle it with so many people? How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie? It just doesn't add up.
Because what I say is true as I have explained logically and philosophically in the past. These people were like you in that they believed in something and from that emotional standpoint they moved forwards towards the conclusion of their faith based on the premise of that belief, which sets up assumptions which they would not, and could not, have questioned. You seem to think that their judgement on the matter was infallible and clear headed and that assumption has set you on the wrong course as this is as far from the truth as can be. They were far from infallible. The fact is we can't know what actually happened 2000 years ago and it is ludicrous to base one's whole life on what is mere guesswork and speculation. The fact that there were many of them is neither here nor there as some/most people, because of emotional needs, will follow and accept what the crowd says (the social norm for that group) or what some charismatic figure expresses. We see this kind of thing with ISIS and with the Japanese civilians in WWII, because of their social beliefs and culture, who committed suicide rather than be take by the Americans as prisoners.
Was the tomb empty or not? Did people claim to have seen Jesus on about a dozen occasions or not? Those are the questions which need answering and if you answer them honestly, as I hope you will, it will turn your life upside down.
1) So you claim, but have not demonstrated.Quoteand your ability to correctly guess how all this came about.We just can't figure out with our limited minds all the possibilities involved here for why this came about.
And these accounts were written 30 years after the claimed events. By that time all manner of myths could have been generated about the tomb and this and that...
Your questions are superfluous because they can't be answered with 100% confirmation, as all historical accounts can't be, else all historians past, present and future would all agree on the way historical events have proceeded. But they don't and there is a reason for this.
Let's try it. What are you ten Korean names?Mary Magdalene, the 11, Cleopas and his travelling companion, James (the Lord's half brother)....Yes, thanks. So how many independent witnesses do we have and do we have any good reason to believe them?
North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il is the best golfer in the world, hands down. On his first ever trip to the golf course, he shot 38-under par, including 5 hole-in-ones! This is reported by the government controlled media. He routinely shoots 3 or 4 hole-in-ones every time out.
Not quite as old as your examples, Alan. Do you not have even a niggling doubt about this report,
Exactly, Alan, have you any for the Resurrection? I'm sure if you go over to N Korea, they'll provide you with as many as you'll find in the Bible to back up that story.
Now tell me the names of those in North Korea.
Names in a book, Alan, that's all. I can give you ten Korean names but we won't know any more about them than James, Cleopas or Mary Magdalene
- nor can we question any of them and see if we believe their version of events.That's correct, but the people to whom the gospels and letters were written could have done, yet the Christian faith took off.
No. I meant 11 men, though, as you may be hinting, they were the group known as "The Twelve," the number decreasing when Judas committed suicide.the 11,
Do you mean the Twelve?
No, at least 5 books written 2000 years ago.How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?And how do you know that they knew it wasn't a lie? All you have to gauge this is a book written 2000 years ago.
Oh good grief, this one has been done to death. No-one is claiming it thereby meant it was true. When will you lot stop making out as if our lot ever claim that?
If they believed it to be true that belief is no proof that what they believed was true,
just that they were in emotional need for it to be seen by them as being trueAnd how does it prove that? What a silly claim.
Slaps head.You have no proof that they did!!! All you have is that some people wrote that, which proves nothing. All you have is speculation!!!Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?
I know I have said it before a few times, but will repeat it. People see what they want to see, like the famous Angel of Mons, which was a made up story!Why do you think it is comparable (rather than it just being a handy sound bite, say)?
Let me get this right. Are you seriously saying that Jesus was not killed?And he got killedAnd he got killed.And there it is again that lack of understanding of human nature and what people do on occasions. They did not think and perceive the world as we do with our western education. God and all that was a given and which coloured their views and outlook. They were looking for a messiah before this Jesus fellow came along.People act upon their feelings and think they are following and doing the right thing but this is no guarantee that it is.Absolute guarantee? No,of course not, but let's try to think this through. What reason could they realistically have had to have made it all up?QuoteWhen the witnesses believed they were talking and sometimes eating with Jesus after he had been killed. What is your explanation of that?QuoteWhat makes you think that it happened at all? Do believe everything that people wrote in history?QuoteYou also need to factor into the equation that the existence of God was a presumed given in those days and this would have coloured how they would have judged and considered things, especially with reference to their assumed history and the oppression of the Romans in their 'holy' God given land.So what made people think the tomb was empty? You don't need to believe in God to tell that a tomb is empty. What made them think they were talking to someone? You don't need to believe in God to do that.
Talking to someone? What this about?
You have no proof for that, just speculation based on some stuff written 2000 years ago and as to why they wrote it.
As for the second bit my reply is the same. You have no proof for this just a the NT written 2000 years ago and a bag full of speculation.
Then, to you all history, absolutely all of it, is "just speculation". There is not one thing in history which can be determined with absolutely 100% certainty.The same goes for lots of things, e.g. in physics, yet we come to conclusions.So you claim, but have not demonstrated.Your whole premise is based on speculationQuote...What a load of old tosh. Seriously, it is. Come on, what would have been their motives for making it all up? How would they have managed to handle it with so many people? How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie? It just doesn't add up.
Because what I say is true as I have explained logically and philosophically in the past. These people were like you in that they believed in something and from that emotional standpoint they moved forwards towards the conclusion of their faith based on the premise of that belief, which sets up assumptions which they would not, and could not, have questioned. You seem to think that their judgement on the matter was infallible and clear headed and that assumption has set you on the wrong course as this is as far from the truth as can be. They were far from infallible. The fact is we can't know what actually happened 2000 years ago and it is ludicrous to base one's whole life on what is mere guesswork and speculation. The fact that there were many of them is neither here nor there as some/most people, because of emotional needs, will follow and accept what the crowd says (the social norm for that group) or what some charismatic figure expresses. We see this kind of thing with ISIS and with the Japanese civilians in WWII, because of their social beliefs and culture, who committed suicide rather than be take by the Americans as prisoners.
Was the tomb empty or not? Did people claim to have seen Jesus on about a dozen occasions or not? Those are the questions which need answering and if you answer them honestly, as I hope you will, it will turn your life upside down.Quoteand your ability to correctly guess how all this came about.We just can't figure out with our limited minds all the possibilities involved here for why this came about.QuoteAnd these accounts were written 30 years after the claimed events. By that time all manner of myths could have been generated about the tomb and this and that...How?Quote100%? I agree. However, I take it you accept that things like the Armada and the Battle of Hastings and the Roman invasion of Britain happened. Why so unsure on this one (apart from, perhaps, it making great claims on you personally if it is true)?
Your questions are superfluous because they can't be answered with 100% confirmation, as all historical accounts can't be, else all historians past, present and future would all agree on the way historical events have proceeded. But they don't and there is a reason for this.Quote
-------------------------------------------------------
1) Yes I have because you admit in 4) that what you have is not 100%. If it is not 100% then it is just speculation!!! If you don't have categorical proof then it is just mere speculation as I have been saying all along.
So you are not absolutely sure that gravity exists in that if you jumped off a cliff you are not absolutely sure you finish up in a heap at the bottom?
2) Yes, but we don't base our entire fundamental life style on it. It is just useful stuff or something for our intellectual amusement. And the conclusions science comes to are based on facts, as seen by us, and where there is doubt, usually, this is acknowledged by proposals of what it could be. And when new evidence comes along that changes our views our views change. The whole process is in flux, not set in stone based on no viable and useful evidence as your faith is.
So why do you think that is how Christianity started? It's easy to claim that, but where is your evidence. Convince me that it is not just you dodging the issue, doing a lot of God-dodging.
3) Your lack of understanding of human nature and what was going on in mankind's outlook at the time beggars belief, Alan. Where do you think any myths came from? How did any religion and its weird ideas come from? Even today the crazy ideas of Scientology have taken off in our so called enlightened days. That's human nature, peoples' emotional needs running their lives.
Really. I wonder whether any other atheists here would support that view.
4) Trying to second guess my position won't work, Alan. As I have said before all history is subject to speculation and any sane person wouldn't base their fundamental life and outlook on it. I.e. it makes no odds to me whether those events actually took place or not it is just history; it's come and gone.
1) No, at least 5 books written 2000 years ago.How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?And how do you know that they knew it wasn't a lie? All you have to gauge this is a book written 2000 years ago.Quote2) Oh good grief, this one has been done to death. No-one is claiming it thereby meant it was true. When will you lot stop making out as if our lot ever claim that?
If they believed it to be true that belief is no proof that what they believed was true,Quotejust that they were in emotional need for it to be seen by them as being true3) And how does it prove that? What a silly claim.Quote4) Slaps head.You have no proof that they did!!! All you have is that some people wrote that, which proves nothing. All you have is speculation!!!Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.Let me get this right. Are you seriously saying that Jesus was not killed?And he got killedAnd he got killed.And there it is again that lack of understanding of human nature and what people do on occasions. They did not think and perceive the world as we do with our western education. God and all that was a given and which coloured their views and outlook. They were looking for a messiah before this Jesus fellow came along.People act upon their feelings and think they are following and doing the right thing but this is no guarantee that it is.Absolute guarantee? No,of course not, but let's try to think this through. What reason could they realistically have had to have made it all up?QuoteWhen the witnesses believed they were talking and sometimes eating with Jesus after he had been killed. What is your explanation of that?QuoteWhat makes you think that it happened at all? Do believe everything that people wrote in history?QuoteYou also need to factor into the equation that the existence of God was a presumed given in those days and this would have coloured how they would have judged and considered things, especially with reference to their assumed history and the oppression of the Romans in their 'holy' God given land.So what made people think the tomb was empty? You don't need to believe in God to tell that a tomb is empty. What made them think they were talking to someone? You don't need to believe in God to do that.
Talking to someone? What this about?
You have no proof for that, just speculation based on some stuff written 2000 years ago and as to why they wrote it.
As for the second bit my reply is the same. You have no proof for this just a the NT written 2000 years ago and a bag full of speculation.
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.No non-Christian sources for his existence other than for a couple of pretty well-respected Roman historians. Oddly enough, sometimes the really important news doesn't hit the headlines like a rocket, but trickles in slowly. When the Josephus references are considered, would you have expected a Jewish historian - clearly trying to hype the history of the Jews and Judaism - to have made a big thing of a man claiming to be their own God in human form and who then went on to criticise the leadership of his (Josephus') faith?
No non-Christian sources for his existence other than for a couple of pretty well-respected Roman historians.Well respected by whom?
Oddly enough, sometimes the really important news doesn't hit the headlines like a rocket, but trickles in slowly.Is two thousand years long enough to constitute 'slowly'?
Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith! :)
Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.
Low-quality jibe there; but then, there's no Shaker to prime you.
No. I meant 11 men, though, as you may be hinting, they were the group known as "The Twelve," the number decreasing when Judas committed suicide.the 11,
Do you mean the Twelve?
No non-Christian sources for his existence other than for a couple of pretty well-respected Roman historians.Tacitus and Suetonius probably used Christians as their sources. There is no evidence that they had independent contemporary sources.
When the Josephus references are considered, would you have expected a Jewish historian - clearly trying to hype the history of the Jews and Judaism - to have made a big thing of a man claiming to be their own God in human form and who then went on to criticise the leadership of his (Josephus') faith?In the best case scenario, the two passages in Josephus were doctored by later Christians. There is a good case that they are outright forgeries (by Christians). Here we have prime evidence that early Christians were prepared to manufacture false documents and you want me to believe that the gospels are true, honest guv.
Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith! :)
Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.
Low-quality jibe there; but then, there's no Shaker to prime you.
Are you claiming that your jibe was somehow high quality?
Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God, if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.
These things are an interest to most of us, in order to learn lessons, but if we read that Mussolini was cut down three days after being hanged from a lamp post and was then seen eating and drinking with a number of people, we'd take it that the reporter had been drinking a little too much himself.
Unless you're name's Alan, of course!
So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers, but at least a dozen if we count the people who claimed to have seen Jesus) now becomes "duplication of the available tittle-tattle". I was hoping for a serious discussion with you.1) No, at least 5 books written 2000 years ago.How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?And how do you know that they knew it wasn't a lie? All you have to gauge this is a book written 2000 years ago.Quote2) Oh good grief, this one has been done to death. No-one is claiming it thereby meant it was true. When will you lot stop making out as if our lot ever claim that?
If they believed it to be true that belief is no proof that what they believed was true,Quotejust that they were in emotional need for it to be seen by them as being true3) And how does it prove that? What a silly claim.Quote4) Slaps head.You have no proof that they did!!! All you have is that some people wrote that, which proves nothing. All you have is speculation!!!Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?
1) I was referring to the NT but the number of books is neither here nor there. It all means is the duplication of the available tittle-tattle.
Know 100%? Correct. Know enough to base my life upon it? Yes, I do know that well enough.
2) You only have yourself to blame for this. You can't claim they knew that the events were fact when quite clearly you don't know that.
That's my whole argument here about what you actually know to be true about what happened 2000 years ago. Oh yeah, that's right, you weren't there to see it!!!!What a weird criterion. So we should only believe things we have seen ourselves? Are you serious?
What was my need then?
3) People join religions because they have a need.
Quite obviously they were waiting for the messiah and all that and this new cult of following Jesus fitted the bill.Oh, well put. It was what was predicted beforehand. Thanks for that endorsement.
It's just human nature to what to be loved and all that and to feel secure and safe.<snigger/>
If you want to know its content, may I suggest you read it. That's what other people do.
4) Slaps head. What ever floats your boat.
The only fact you have here is that the NT was written by men. Its content is just speculation.
Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God, if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.
These things are an interest to most of us, in order to learn lessons, but if we read that Mussolini was cut down three days after being hanged from a lamp post and was then seen eating and drinking with a number of people, we'd take it that the reporter had been drinking a little too much himself.
Unless you're name's Alan, of course!
..."We don't even know if he existed"? So you are a conspiracy theory man then.
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.
You are missing out important stuff here? Why? It was Isaiah writing hundreds of years before and Matthew writing independently of Mark writing independently of Luke writing independently of John writing independently of Paul who wrote about his resurrection.Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God, if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.
These things are an interest to most of us, in order to learn lessons, but if we read that Mussolini was cut down three days after being hanged from a lamp post and was then seen eating and drinking with a number of people, we'd take it that the reporter had been drinking a little too much himself.
Unless you're name's Alan, of course!
So if the report said he had predicted it beforehand and the report went on to name all the individuals that had seen and ate with him (not around now, of course, to question them) you'd believe it. I thought so.
Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith! :)
Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.
Low-quality jibe there; but then, there's no Shaker to prime you.
Are you claiming that your jibe was somehow high quality?
You are missing out important stuff here? Why? It was Isaiah writing hundreds of years before and Matthew writing independently of Mark writing independently of Luke writing independently of John writing independently of Paul who wrote about his resurrection.Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God, if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.
These things are an interest to most of us, in order to learn lessons, but if we read that Mussolini was cut down three days after being hanged from a lamp post and was then seen eating and drinking with a number of people, we'd take it that the reporter had been drinking a little too much himself.
Unless you're name's Alan, of course!
So if the report said he had predicted it beforehand and the report went on to name all the individuals that had seen and ate with him (not around now, of course, to question them) you'd believe it. I thought so.
No. It is generally thought amongst scholars that Mark was written first, then Matthew or Luke (probably Matthew) and lastly John. Paul very likely wrote 1 Corinthians 15 before any of them.You are missing out important stuff here? Why? It was Isaiah writing hundreds of years before and Matthew writing independently of Mark writing independently of Luke writing independently of John writing independently of Paul who wrote about his resurrection.Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God, if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.
These things are an interest to most of us, in order to learn lessons, but if we read that Mussolini was cut down three days after being hanged from a lamp post and was then seen eating and drinking with a number of people, we'd take it that the reporter had been drinking a little too much himself.
Unless you're name's Alan, of course!
So if the report said he had predicted it beforehand and the report went on to name all the individuals that had seen and ate with him (not around now, of course, to question them) you'd believe it. I thought so.
How on earth can you claim that they were all written independently of each other! Were they written at the same time?
Are you sure they never read anything that had been written before they wrote their accounts?No, not at all. I am not saying that. It is very likely that Matthew and Luke had read Mark and Luke may have read Matthew, but the resurrection accounts seem to be independent of each other. Have a read of them. It's part of the reason why people like JeremyP claim they are incompatible with each other.
Are you certain that whoever compiled all the bible stories didn't have a hand in it?A hand in what?
How do know all the editing over the centuries hasn't managed to make them all reconcile with each other in those predictions?Because we are confident we can get back to the original text. Even Bart Ehrman says, "... the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament". Essential Christian beliefs certainly include the crucifixion and resurrection.
Blandly? Why is it "a bit much"?
To blandly tell me that it all happened in the way a 2000 year old book says it happened is a bit much for someone who is always going on about atheists asserting things!
What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?
As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!
...Books. Plural.
To blandly tell me that it all happened in the way a 2000 year old book says it happened is a bit much for someone who is always going on about atheists asserting things!
No. It is generally thought amongst scholars that Mark was written first, then Matthew or Luke (probably Matthew) and lastly John. Paul very likely wrote 1 Corinthians 15 before any of them.You are missing out important stuff here? Why? It was Isaiah writing hundreds of years before and Matthew writing independently of Mark writing independently of Luke writing independently of John writing independently of Paul who wrote about his resurrection.Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehand and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God, if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.
These things are an interest to most of us, in order to learn lessons, but if we read that Mussolini was cut down three days after being hanged from a lamp post and was then seen eating and drinking with a number of people, we'd take it that the reporter had been drinking a little too much himself.
Unless you're name's Alan, of course!
So if the report said he had predicted it beforehand and the report went on to name all the individuals that had seen and ate with him (not around now, of course, to question them) you'd believe it. I thought so.
How on earth can you claim that they were all written independently of each other! Were they written at the same time?QuoteAre you sure they never read anything that had been written before they wrote their accounts?No, not at all. I am not saying that. It is very likely that Matthew and Luke had read Mark and Luke may have read Matthew, but the resurrection accounts seem to be independent of each other. Have a read of them. It's part of the reason why people like JeremyP claim they are incompatible with each other.QuoteAre you certain that whoever compiled all the bible stories didn't have a hand in it?A hand in what?QuoteHow do know all the editing over the centuries hasn't managed to make them all reconcile with each other in those predictions?Because we are confident we can get back to the original text. Even Bart Ehrman says, "... the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament". Essential Christian beliefs certainly include the crucifixion and resurrection.QuoteBlandly? Why is it "a bit much"?
To blandly tell me that it all happened in the way a 2000 year old book says it happened is a bit much for someone who is always going on about atheists asserting things!QuoteWhat? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?
As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!
Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?...What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?
As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!
Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)
Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?...What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?
As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!
Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)
Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?...What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?
As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!
Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)
Alan
You aren't, I hope, dismissing the possibility that the NT stuff about Jesus was written so as to make it appear that 'prophecies' were 'fulfilled' - after all, propagandists on a mission can be quite devious you know!
Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?...What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?
As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!
Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)
What? That they pretended that Jesus had died and was alive again? If so, then yes, because it does not fit in with what happened, i.e. individuals and groups believing they saw Jesus alive and well, thank you very much, on about a dozen occasions afterwards, that the tomb was empty and that they Christian church started up then.Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?...What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?
As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!
Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)
Alan
You aren't, I hope, dismissing the possibility that the NT stuff about Jesus was written so as to make it appear that 'prophecies' were 'fulfilled' - after all, propagandists on a mission can be quite devious you know!
Argumentum ad populum etc.Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?...What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?
As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!
Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)
Alan
You aren't, I hope, dismissing the possibility that the NT stuff about Jesus was written so as to make it appear that 'prophecies' were 'fulfilled' - after all, propagandists on a mission can be quite devious you know!
That would seem like the most obvious scenario, especially as the vast majority of Jews didn't, and don't, recognise Jesus as their promised 'messiah'.
Argument ad populum? Remember that lots of Jews (percentage unknown) did follow Jesus, but when Jews become Christians they usually get assimilated into what is basically a Gentile church, though is not always the case now.Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?...What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?
As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!
Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)
Well, the Jews still think the Suffering Servant refers to Israel (or a remnant of Israel) since "My Servant" is the way Israel is referred to throughout Isaiah.
As for the NT's use of this chapter, in one of BA's favourite words, it's all a form of Midrash,Why do you think this is Midrash? On what basis have you come to this conclusion? What are your sources?
conjured up by earnest evangelists who were deliberately looking for some OT prophecies which might predict the unfortunate end of their hero, whose sad demise they had not expected. The Isaiah prophecy says nothing about a bodily resurrection of a man, but more likely the promise of the rebirth of a people after great suffering.You may find some of the points at http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-suffering-servant-and-isaiah-53-a-conversation-with-darrell-bock worth looking at, including where he shows Isaiah 53 cannot refer to the people of Israel, e.g. how can the people of Israel be cut off from the people of Israel (53:8) and how could the nation die (53:11)?
Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?...What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?
As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!
Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)
What? That they pretended that Jesus had died and was alive again? If so, then yes, because it does not fit in with what happened, i.e. individuals and groups believing they saw Jesus alive and well, thank you very much, on about a dozen occasions afterwards, that the tomb was empty and that they Christian church started up then.Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?...What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?
As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!
Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)
Alan
You aren't, I hope, dismissing the possibility that the NT stuff about Jesus was written so as to make it appear that 'prophecies' were 'fulfilled' - after all, propagandists on a mission can be quite devious you know!
Remember we need a coherent explanation for all that happened, not just bits of it.
Since I am struggling to understand what you mean between the predictive text errors and your insults, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain clearly in English what you mean having checked that predictive text has not screwed up your text before sending it.Adapt things as in manage to raise Jesus from the dead or do you mean that the Isaiah text was adapted (despite us having an copy from before Jesus' time)? What are you saying might have been "adapted"?...What? Managed to raise him from the dead just to fit Isaiah 53?
As for Isaiah's prediction, do you not think it's possible that they made Christ fit the prediction and not the other way around!
Are you being disingenuous here in misunderstanding the point that you can 'adapt' things to fit predictions (that's leaving aside you presenting claims as facts again in your habitual lie)
Neither of the parts of the false dichotomy, you have presented here, are a sensible interpretation of adaptation? Are you being deliberately disingenuous or does English and History really work that differently in your world? I struggle with the second as a possibility since you must surely have read enough challenges not Isaiah as being fulfilled (apart from it not really reading as a prediction) to understand what 'adapt' would mean?
Perhaps I am wrong and you miss that additions to anything ok by that happened May be by a creation to tie in with a reading of Isaiah. On which btw claiming that the gospel accounts are independent of Isaiah is not even wrong. You really should stop casually abusing terms such as independent.
...So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith! :)
Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.
Low-quality jibe there; but then, there's no Shaker to prime you.
Are you claiming that your jibe was somehow high quality?
No, I'm not. You are just looking for an argument.
Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehandYou mean what he is said to have predicted beforehand in stories that were written after the event.
and his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God... according to some stories.
if he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.
So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers)
but at least a dozen if we count the people who claimed to have seen Jesus)
That the whole story is fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption. Credulous people, in times when religiosity was the norm, would be easily convinced (just as easily as today)....So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their reporting.Or unless it all fitted with what he had predicted beforehandYou mean what he is said to have predicted beforehand in stories that were written after the event.
Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their reporting.Quoteand his body had disappeared and he was seen on a dozen or so occasions by individuals and groups, sometimes eating with them and he was the sort of person God... according to some stories.
Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their interpretation.Quoteif he exists, might raise from the dead to vindicate his message and it fitted with Isaiah 53 written hundreds of years ago and so on and so forth.
According to some stories that use a retrospective interpretation.
No, it isn't. For it to be a lie it would need to be a false statement and intentionally so.So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers)
This is a lie.
If you read what I have been saying, I have readily accepted that the general view of relevant scholars is that Mark came first and Matthew and Luke had access to it. I am not arguing anything to the contrary. What I am saying is that the crucifixion and resurrection accounts are independent. Heck, you yourself argue that the accounts are incompatible!
Documents are not independent if they all rely on the same source. At least three of the four gospels are interdependent
and all four are written long enough after the fact that we can't be sure that they don't all have the same source (of unknown providence) for the crucifixion and resurrection.So what would this unknown source be Q2?
Yes, so the question is did those people actually claim to have seen Jesus?Quotebut at least a dozen if we count the people who claimed to have seen Jesus)
You mean the people who are claimed to have seen Jesus.
We really only have Paul's word for it, and apart from one or two instances, he is very vague about who these people were.No, we don't. We also have Matthew, Mark (ish), Luke and John's word for it. There are accounts of the resurrection in the gospels, you know.
Ah, Floo reaches her intellectual zenith! :)
Which, fortunately for her, is considerably higher than yours.
Low-quality jibe there; but then, there's no Shaker to prime you.
Are you claiming that your jibe was somehow high quality?
No, I'm not. You are just looking for an argument.
Is that the five minutes or the full half hour?
Documents are not independent if they all rely on the same source. At least three of the four gospels are interdependent
1}Then, to you all history, absolutely all of it, is "just speculation". There is not one thing in history which can be determined with absolutely 100% certainty.The same goes for lots of things, e.g. in physics, yet we come to conclusions.So you claim, but have not demonstrated.Your whole premise is based on speculationQuote...What a load of old tosh. Seriously, it is. Come on, what would have been their motives for making it all up? How would they have managed to handle it with so many people? How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie? It just doesn't add up.
Because what I say is true as I have explained logically and philosophically in the past. These people were like you in that they believed in something and from that emotional standpoint they moved forwards towards the conclusion of their faith based on the premise of that belief, which sets up assumptions which they would not, and could not, have questioned. You seem to think that their judgement on the matter was infallible and clear headed and that assumption has set you on the wrong course as this is as far from the truth as can be. They were far from infallible. The fact is we can't know what actually happened 2000 years ago and it is ludicrous to base one's whole life on what is mere guesswork and speculation. The fact that there were many of them is neither here nor there as some/most people, because of emotional needs, will follow and accept what the crowd says (the social norm for that group) or what some charismatic figure expresses. We see this kind of thing with ISIS and with the Japanese civilians in WWII, because of their social beliefs and culture, who committed suicide rather than be take by the Americans as prisoners.
Was the tomb empty or not? Did people claim to have seen Jesus on about a dozen occasions or not? Those are the questions which need answering and if you answer them honestly, as I hope you will, it will turn your life upside down.Quoteand your ability to correctly guess how all this came about.We just can't figure out with our limited minds all the possibilities involved here for why this came about.QuoteAnd these accounts were written 30 years after the claimed events. By that time all manner of myths could have been generated about the tomb and this and that...How?Quote100%? I agree. However, I take it you accept that things like the Armada and the Battle of Hastings and the Roman invasion of Britain happened. Why so unsure on this one (apart from, perhaps, it making great claims on you personally if it is true)?
Your questions are superfluous because they can't be answered with 100% confirmation, as all historical accounts can't be, else all historians past, present and future would all agree on the way historical events have proceeded. But they don't and there is a reason for this.Quote
-------------------------------------------------------
1) Yes I have because you admit in 4) that what you have is not 100%. If it is not 100% then it is just speculation!!! If you don't have categorical proof then it is just mere speculation as I have been saying all along.Quote2}So you are not absolutely sure that gravity exists in that if you jumped off a cliff you are not absolutely sure you finish up in a heap at the bottom?
2) Yes, but we don't base our entire fundamental life style on it. It is just useful stuff or something for our intellectual amusement. And the conclusions science comes to are based on facts, as seen by us, and where there is doubt, usually, this is acknowledged by proposals of what it could be. And when new evidence comes along that changes our views our views change. The whole process is in flux, not set in stone based on no viable and useful evidence as your faith is.
Oh and we all do lots of things without being able to be 100% certain of them, like getting in a car or a plane. Yet you are content to put your life totally in the driver's or pilot's hands.Quote3}So why do you think that is how Christianity started? It's easy to claim that, but where is your evidence. Convince me that it is not just you dodging the issue, doing a lot of God-dodging.
3) Your lack of understanding of human nature and what was going on in mankind's outlook at the time beggars belief, Alan. Where do you think any myths came from? How did any religion and its weird ideas come from? Even today the crazy ideas of Scientology have taken off in our so called enlightened days. That's human nature, peoples' emotional needs running their lives.Quote4}Really. I wonder whether any other atheists here would support that view.
4) Trying to second guess my position won't work, Alan. As I have said before all history is subject to speculation and any sane person wouldn't base their fundamental life and outlook on it. I.e. it makes no odds to me whether those events actually took place or not it is just history; it's come and gone.
Any other atheists got any comments on what has just been said there. Does it make no odds to you whether the Second World War happened or the invasion of Iraq or the Battle of Hastings or the fall of Communism?
You imply more than one. Who else besides Josephus?I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.No non-Christian sources for his existence other than for a couple of pretty well-respected Roman historians. Oddly enough, sometimes the really important news doesn't hit the headlines like a rocket, but trickles in slowly. When the Josephus references are considered, would you have expected a Jewish historian - clearly trying to hype the history of the Jews and Judaism - to have made a big thing of a man claiming to be their own God in human form and who then went on to criticise the leadership of his (Josephus') faith?
You imply more than one. Who else besides Josephus?I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.No non-Christian sources for his existence other than for a couple of pretty well-respected Roman historians. Oddly enough, sometimes the really important news doesn't hit the headlines like a rocket, but trickles in slowly. When the Josephus references are considered, would you have expected a Jewish historian - clearly trying to hype the history of the Jews and Judaism - to have made a big thing of a man claiming to be their own God in human form and who then went on to criticise the leadership of his (Josephus') faith?
Yes, we are all bias. Just as the person who altered his manuscript to say Jesus was real was cooking the books.
Why did Jesus, as the story goes, only show himself to his followers. Why didn't he go to the high priests and Pilot and so on, and to all those that saw him on the cross? Or was there a problem with that?
... aaaaaaaaaand the negative proof fallacy gets yet another airing ::)
Actually not and I'd be careful about claiming that of other people, floo. I would say that I would have expected the gospels to have recorded it if it had happened. It is surely better to counter BA's argument if you disagree with it than just be insulting. Would you not agree?... aaaaaaaaaand the negative proof fallacy gets yet another airing ::)
Totally bonkers of course, but the logic and intelligence to understand that is obviously lacking! ::)
Actually not and I'd be careful about claiming that of other people, floo. I would say that I would have expected the gospels to have recorded it if it had happened. It is surely better to counter BA's argument if you disagree with it than just be insulting. Would you not agree?... aaaaaaaaaand the negative proof fallacy gets yet another airing ::)
Totally bonkers of course, but the logic and intelligence to understand that is obviously lacking! ::)
No, I mean it is better to disagree with someone's argument, try to explain why and not insult people.Actually not and I'd be careful about claiming that of other people, floo. I would say that I would have expected the gospels to have recorded it if it had happened. It is surely better to counter BA's argument if you disagree with it than just be insulting. Would you not agree?... aaaaaaaaaand the negative proof fallacy gets yet another airing ::)
Totally bonkers of course, but the logic and intelligence to understand that is obviously lacking! ::)
Like you mean the person in question responds to challenges? ::)
No, I mean it is better to disagree with someone's argument, try to explain why and not insult people.Actually not and I'd be careful about claiming that of other people, floo. I would say that I would have expected the gospels to have recorded it if it had happened. It is surely better to counter BA's argument if you disagree with it than just be insulting. Would you not agree?... aaaaaaaaaand the negative proof fallacy gets yet another airing ::)
Totally bonkers of course, but the logic and intelligence to understand that is obviously lacking! ::)
Like you mean the person in question responds to challenges? ::)
Or you are just being paranoid?No, I mean it is better to disagree with someone's argument, try to explain why and not insult people.Actually not and I'd be careful about claiming that of other people, floo. I would say that I would have expected the gospels to have recorded it if it had happened. It is surely better to counter BA's argument if you disagree with it than just be insulting. Would you not agree?... aaaaaaaaaand the negative proof fallacy gets yet another airing ::)
Totally bonkers of course, but the logic and intelligence to understand that is obviously lacking! ::)
Like you mean the person in question responds to challenges? ::)
The person in question spends most of their posts being obnoxious to me and others, they seem to get off on it.
I have not responded to their comments directly, because if I do I will probably go totally crazy and tell them exactly what I think of them in no uncertain terms. If I do that I will have to donate £100 to charity, as I promised to do if I let rip in their direction. But so help me I am very tempted! >:(Or just ignore them if you can't give a proper response?
Or you are just being paranoid?No, I mean it is better to disagree with someone's argument, try to explain why and not insult people.Actually not and I'd be careful about claiming that of other people, floo. I would say that I would have expected the gospels to have recorded it if it had happened. It is surely better to counter BA's argument if you disagree with it than just be insulting. Would you not agree?... aaaaaaaaaand the negative proof fallacy gets yet another airing ::)
Totally bonkers of course, but the logic and intelligence to understand that is obviously lacking! ::)
Like you mean the person in question responds to challenges? ::)
The person in question spends most of their posts being obnoxious to me and others, they seem to get off on it.QuoteI have not responded to their comments directly, because if I do I will probably go totally crazy and tell them exactly what I think of them in no uncertain terms. If I do that I will have to donate £100 to charity, as I promised to do if I let rip in their direction. But so help me I am very tempted! >:(Or just ignore them if you can't give a proper response?
I'll settle for "thoughtless".Or you are just being paranoid?No, I mean it is better to disagree with someone's argument, try to explain why and not insult people.Actually not and I'd be careful about claiming that of other people, floo. I would say that I would have expected the gospels to have recorded it if it had happened. It is surely better to counter BA's argument if you disagree with it than just be insulting. Would you not agree?... aaaaaaaaaand the negative proof fallacy gets yet another airing ::)
Totally bonkers of course, but the logic and intelligence to understand that is obviously lacking! ::)
Like you mean the person in question responds to challenges? ::)
The person in question spends most of their posts being obnoxious to me and others, they seem to get off on it.QuoteI have not responded to their comments directly, because if I do I will probably go totally crazy and tell them exactly what I think of them in no uncertain terms. If I do that I will have to donate £100 to charity, as I promised to do if I let rip in their direction. But so help me I am very tempted! >:(Or just ignore them if you can't give a proper response?
Can I suggest that the casual use of paranoid which is about a mental condition is somewhat tasteless?
1} So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers, but at least a dozen if we count the people who claimed to have seen Jesus) now becomes "duplication of the available tittle-tattle". I was hoping for a serious discussion with you.1) No, at least 5 books written 2000 years ago.How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?And how do you know that they knew it wasn't a lie? All you have to gauge this is a book written 2000 years ago.Quote2) Oh good grief, this one has been done to death. No-one is claiming it thereby meant it was true. When will you lot stop making out as if our lot ever claim that?
If they believed it to be true that belief is no proof that what they believed was true,Quotejust that they were in emotional need for it to be seen by them as being true3) And how does it prove that? What a silly claim.Quote4) Slaps head.You have no proof that they did!!! All you have is that some people wrote that, which proves nothing. All you have is speculation!!!Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?
1) I was referring to the NT but the number of books is neither here nor there. It all means is the duplication of the available tittle-tattle.Quote2}Know 100%? Correct. Know enough to base my life upon it? Yes, I do know that well enough.
2) You only have yourself to blame for this. You can't claim they knew that the events were fact when quite clearly you don't know that.QuoteThat's my whole argument here about what you actually know to be true about what happened 2000 years ago. Oh yeah, that's right, you weren't there to see it!!!!3} What a weird criterion. So we should only believe things we have seen ourselves? Are you serious?Quote4} What was my need then?
3) People join religions because they have a need.QuoteQuite obviously they were waiting for the messiah and all that and this new cult of following Jesus fitted the bill.5} Oh, well put. It was what was predicted beforehand. Thanks for that endorsement.QuoteIt's just human nature to what to be loved and all that and to feel secure and safe.6} <snigger/>Quote7} If you want to know its content, may I suggest you read it. That's what other people do.
4) Slaps head. What ever floats your boat.
The only fact you have here is that the NT was written by men. Its content is just speculation.
If it was so bloody obvious that Jesus had existed it would all be done and dusted by now. The fact people are arguing about this like historians shows that it is far from clear cut...."We don't even know if he existed"? So you are a conspiracy theory man then.
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.
We do have Tacitus who wrote of him, probably Suetonius too. Don't forget Pliny the Younger writing of him or Josephus.
So why do you think we have no non-Christian sources for his existence? We don't know where they got their information from; it might have been Christians, but what sources would you expect which would tell us about an itinerant Jewish preacher who you were either for (and became a Christian, some of whom wrote about him) or were against him (and, if in your power, had him crucified and wanted the whole thing to cease)?
Everything you say, which is like this, assumes these people, or people in general, were/are rational. Many religions have grown up with weird ideas and beliefs and have been followed by many people well after its creation. So why do you think these early Christians were any different? If many other religions/sects can have strange beliefs based on nothing then why not the sect that grew up 2000 years ago and which became Christianity?...So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
If you saw a dead man, who you had killed, alive with hundreds of other people who had condoned your actions that would be pretty hard to deny, yes? If JC's follower were there they could easily say, "See!, it is all true that he is the son of God." Stuff like that can't be 'locked away' completely.You imply more than one. Who else besides Josephus?I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.No non-Christian sources for his existence other than for a couple of pretty well-respected Roman historians. Oddly enough, sometimes the really important news doesn't hit the headlines like a rocket, but trickles in slowly. When the Josephus references are considered, would you have expected a Jewish historian - clearly trying to hype the history of the Jews and Judaism - to have made a big thing of a man claiming to be their own God in human form and who then went on to criticise the leadership of his (Josephus') faith?
Yes, we are all bias. Just as the person who altered his manuscript to say Jesus was real was cooking the books.
Why did Jesus, as the story goes, only show himself to his followers. Why didn't he go to the high priests and Pilot and so on, and to all those that saw him on the cross? Or was there a problem with that?
How do we know He didn't? They were hardly likely to announce it abroad if He had!
Try it some time. You did exactly not this with a post of mine, either on here or "No health in us." You called something I said weird in it, besides other things. I replied to it today and await your reply.No, I mean it is better to disagree with someone's argument, try to explain why and not insult people.Actually not and I'd be careful about claiming that of other people, floo. I would say that I would have expected the gospels to have recorded it if it had happened. It is surely better to counter BA's argument if you disagree with it than just be insulting. Would you not agree?... aaaaaaaaaand the negative proof fallacy gets yet another airing ::)
Totally bonkers of course, but the logic and intelligence to understand that is obviously lacking! ::)
Like you mean the person in question responds to challenges? ::)
It is obvious that Jesus existed, but there is much more to becoming a Christian than just believing he existed.If it was so bloody obvious that Jesus had existed it would all be done and dusted by now. The fact people are arguing about this like historians shows that it is far from clear cut...."We don't even know if he existed"? So you are a conspiracy theory man then.
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.
We do have Tacitus who wrote of him, probably Suetonius too. Don't forget Pliny the Younger writing of him or Josephus.
So why do you think we have no non-Christian sources for his existence? We don't know where they got their information from; it might have been Christians, but what sources would you expect which would tell us about an itinerant Jewish preacher who you were either for (and became a Christian, some of whom wrote about him) or were against him (and, if in your power, had him crucified and wanted the whole thing to cease)?
Are you sure about that?
The fact is none of those were eyewitnesses.
And I ask again, how come only his followers saw him afterwards?Are you sure about that as well? James, his half-brother, does not seem to have been a follower until he met the risen Jesus.
Wouldn't it have served God's plan to have Jesus show himself to his antagonists?Why? They had already seen he had done miracles before he was crucified.
If he had done this with hundreds of them they all couldn't have closed the rumours down and having a dead man alive in front of you would be most impressive beyond belief.They saw him killed, they saw the empty tomb, they saw lots of witnesses. Why should they not already believe?
I was thinking of the Jewish authorities.
When you say those against him in your last line who do you mean who were contemporaries of Jesus? Not the Romans as he didn't cause that much of a fuss for them and there were others kicking up similar dust so it was just the norm of the times?
Because none, at least as far as I know, have anything like the evidence that Christianity has. Remember you need to account for the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, people as individuals and groups thinking they saw and/or ate with him on about a dozen occasions and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited and fearful people.Everything you say, which is like this, assumes these people, or people in general, were/are rational. Many religions have grown up with weird ideas and beliefs and have been followed by many people well after its creation. So why do you think these early Christians were any different? If many other religions/sects can have strange beliefs based on nothing then why not the sect that grew up 2000 years ago and which became Christianity?...So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Calling a post "weird" is an insult? Really?Try it some time. You did exactly not this with a post of mine, either on here or "No health in us." You called something I said weird in it, besides other things. I replied to it today and await your reply.No, I mean it is better to disagree with someone's argument, try to explain why and not insult people.Actually not and I'd be careful about claiming that of other people, floo. I would say that I would have expected the gospels to have recorded it if it had happened. It is surely better to counter BA's argument if you disagree with it than just be insulting. Would you not agree?... aaaaaaaaaand the negative proof fallacy gets yet another airing ::)
Totally bonkers of course, but the logic and intelligence to understand that is obviously lacking! ::)
Like you mean the person in question responds to challenges? ::)
If someone makes an assertion and does not back it up then they are ignoring the fact that the burden of proof is on them. That is not an insult. It is a basic rule of debate.
You also, when cornered, resort to just replying "That's your assertion." or such like.
And yet in the post mentioned above you said you had hoped to have had a serious conversation with me implying I'd got to playing games and being silly.A serious conversation includes trying to back whatever a person claims. That applies to both you and me.
Is this the usual conduct of a Christian? Is this how you show how Christians are different and probitious compared to us atheists?
Because none, at least as far as I know, have anything like the evidence that Christianity has. Remember you need to account for the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, people as individuals and groups thinking they saw and/or ate with him on about a dozen occasions and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited and fearful people.Everything you say, which is like this, assumes these people, or people in general, were/are rational. Many religions have grown up with weird ideas and beliefs and have been followed by many people well after its creation. So why do you think these early Christians were any different? If many other religions/sects can have strange beliefs based on nothing then why not the sect that grew up 2000 years ago and which became Christianity?...So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.if
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Which explanation do you have which covers all those?
AlienAgreed, but then no-one here, me included, do not make that claim.
You say thinks like they saw him do miracles, they saw him crucified etc.
Just because these things are written in a book, if does not make them so.
Oh come on, BR. Do you really believe that? If so, please back up your assertion.
In fact it is pretty certain that no miracles were performed ever by anyone anywhere, for the simple reason that they are not possible.
Straw man. See above.
To simply say things happened due to a biased book is silly.
Why do you claim that?Because none, at least as far as I know, have anything like the evidence that Christianity has. Remember you need to account for the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, people as individuals and groups thinking they saw and/or ate with him on about a dozen occasions and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited and fearful people.Everything you say, which is like this, assumes these people, or people in general, were/are rational. Many religions have grown up with weird ideas and beliefs and have been followed by many people well after its creation. So why do you think these early Christians were any different? If many other religions/sects can have strange beliefs based on nothing then why not the sect that grew up 2000 years ago and which became Christianity?...So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.if
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Which explanation do you have which covers all those?
Its all a fabrication and it never happened.
Simple!
AlienAgreed, but then no-one here, me included, do not make that claim.
You say thinks like they saw him do miracles, they saw him crucified etc.
Just because these things are written in a book, if does not make them so.QuoteOh come on, BR. Do you really believe that? If so, please back up your assertion.
In fact it is pretty certain that no miracles were performed ever by anyone anywhere, for the simple reason that they are not possible.QuoteStraw man. See above.
To simply say things happened due to a biased book is silly.
It is obvious that Jesus existed, but there is much more to becoming a Christian than just believing he existed.If it was so bloody obvious that Jesus had existed it would all be done and dusted by now. The fact people are arguing about this like historians shows that it is far from clear cut...."We don't even know if he existed"? So you are a conspiracy theory man then.
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.
We do have Tacitus who wrote of him, probably Suetonius too. Don't forget Pliny the Younger writing of him or Josephus.
So why do you think we have no non-Christian sources for his existence? We don't know where they got their information from; it might have been Christians, but what sources would you expect which would tell us about an itinerant Jewish preacher who you were either for (and became a Christian, some of whom wrote about him) or were against him (and, if in your power, had him crucified and wanted the whole thing to cease)?QuoteAre you sure about that?
The fact is none of those were eyewitnesses.QuoteAnd I ask again, how come only his followers saw him afterwards?Are you sure about that as well? James, his half-brother, does not seem to have been a follower until he met the risen Jesus.QuoteWouldn't it have served God's plan to have Jesus show himself to his antagonists?Why? They had already seen he had done miracles before he was crucified.QuoteIf he had done this with hundreds of them they all couldn't have closed the rumours down and having a dead man alive in front of you would be most impressive beyond belief.They saw him killed, they saw the empty tomb, they saw lots of witnesses. Why should they not already believe?QuoteI was thinking of the Jewish authorities.
When you say those against him in your last line who do you mean who were contemporaries of Jesus? Not the Romans as he didn't cause that much of a fuss for them and there were others kicking up similar dust so it was just the norm of the times?
OK with that.AlienAgreed, but then no-one here, me included, do not make that claim.
You say thinks like they saw him do miracles, they saw him crucified etc.
Just because these things are written in a book, if does not make them so.QuoteOh come on, BR. Do you really believe that? If so, please back up your assertion.
In fact it is pretty certain that no miracles were performed ever by anyone anywhere, for the simple reason that they are not possible.QuoteStraw man. See above.
To simply say things happened due to a biased book is silly.
Miracles cannot happen as they require the laws of physics to be suspended.
That is a positive claim (rather than something like, "I've not seen any reasonable evidence to suggest they have"), so over to you to demonstrate it.
They do not suspend.
OK with that.AlienAgreed, but then no-one here, me included, do not make that claim.
You say thinks like they saw him do miracles, they saw him crucified etc.
Just because these things are written in a book, if does not make them so.QuoteOh come on, BR. Do you really believe that? If so, please back up your assertion.
In fact it is pretty certain that no miracles were performed ever by anyone anywhere, for the simple reason that they are not possible.QuoteStraw man. See above.
To simply say things happened due to a biased book is silly.
Miracles cannot happen as they require the laws of physics to be suspended.QuoteThat is a positive claim (rather than something like, "I've not seen any reasonable evidence to suggest they have"), so over to you to demonstrate it.
They do not suspend.
...So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
No, I don't, not in this particular instance. You stated that miracles cannot happen. You did not say, "I have not seen any evidence which convinces me they do happen", but rather you made the statement that they do not happen. The burden of proof is therefore on you. I am confident you know that anyway.OK with that.AlienAgreed, but then no-one here, me included, do not make that claim.
You say thinks like they saw him do miracles, they saw him crucified etc.
Just because these things are written in a book, if does not make them so.QuoteOh come on, BR. Do you really believe that? If so, please back up your assertion.
In fact it is pretty certain that no miracles were performed ever by anyone anywhere, for the simple reason that they are not possible.QuoteStraw man. See above.
To simply say things happened due to a biased book is silly.
Miracles cannot happen as they require the laws of physics to be suspended.QuoteThat is a positive claim (rather than something like, "I've not seen any reasonable evidence to suggest they have"), so over to you to demonstrate it.
They do not suspend.
You need to show that the miracles happened.
OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it....So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.
1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc. What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.
2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.
Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.
OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it....So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.
1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc. What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.
2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.
Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.
OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it....So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.
1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc. What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.
2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.
Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.
1) It is obvious that Jesus existed, but there is much more to becoming a Christian than just believing he existed.If it was so bloody obvious that Jesus had existed it would all be done and dusted by now. The fact people are arguing about this like historians shows that it is far from clear cut...."We don't even know if he existed"? So you are a conspiracy theory man then.
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.
We do have Tacitus who wrote of him, probably Suetonius too. Don't forget Pliny the Younger writing of him or Josephus.
So why do you think we have no non-Christian sources for his existence? We don't know where they got their information from; it might have been Christians, but what sources would you expect which would tell us about an itinerant Jewish preacher who you were either for (and became a Christian, some of whom wrote about him) or were against him (and, if in your power, had him crucified and wanted the whole thing to cease)?Quote2) Are you sure about that?
The fact is none of those were eyewitnesses.QuoteAnd I ask again, how come only his followers saw him afterwards?3) Are you sure about that as well? James, his half-brother, does not seem to have been a follower until he met the risen Jesus.QuoteWouldn't it have served God's plan to have Jesus show himself to his antagonists?4) Why? They had already seen he had done miracles before he was crucified.QuoteIf he had done this with hundreds of them they all couldn't have closed the rumours down and having a dead man alive in front of you would be most impressive beyond belief.5) They saw him killed, they saw the empty tomb, they saw lots of witnesses. Why should they not already believe?Quote6) I was thinking of the Jewish authorities.
When you say those against him in your last line who do you mean who were contemporaries of Jesus? Not the Romans as he didn't cause that much of a fuss for them and there were others kicking up similar dust so it was just the norm of the times?
It is obvious that Jesus existed, but there is much more to becoming a Christian than just believing he existed.If it was so bloody obvious that Jesus had existed it would all be done and dusted by now. The fact people are arguing about this like historians shows that it is far from clear cut...."We don't even know if he existed"? So you are a conspiracy theory man then.
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.
We do have Tacitus who wrote of him, probably Suetonius too. Don't forget Pliny the Younger writing of him or Josephus.
So why do you think we have no non-Christian sources for his existence? We don't know where they got their information from; it might have been Christians, but what sources would you expect which would tell us about an itinerant Jewish preacher who you were either for (and became a Christian, some of whom wrote about him) or were against him (and, if in your power, had him crucified and wanted the whole thing to cease)?QuoteAre you sure about that?
The fact is none of those were eyewitnesses.QuoteAnd I ask again, how come only his followers saw him afterwards?Are you sure about that as well? James, his half-brother, does not seem to have been a follower until he met the risen Jesus.QuoteWouldn't it have served God's plan to have Jesus show himself to his antagonists?Why? They had already seen he had done miracles before he was crucified.QuoteIf he had done this with hundreds of them they all couldn't have closed the rumours down and having a dead man alive in front of you would be most impressive beyond belief.They saw him killed, they saw the empty tomb, they saw lots of witnesses. Why should they not already believe?QuoteI was thinking of the Jewish authorities.
When you say those against him in your last line who do you mean who were contemporaries of Jesus? Not the Romans as he didn't cause that much of a fuss for them and there were others kicking up similar dust so it was just the norm of the times?
Someone called Jesus probably did exist, and may have been quite charismatic, which is why he attracted some followers. However, I think it more than probable most of what was attributed to him was highly exaggerated or untrue.
This is incorrect. Gordon, as some others do, says, "None of the resurrection stuff... is difficult to fabricate into a story." OK, since it is not difficult, let him do it. He is claiming that that would be a more probable explanation of what really happened than that Jesus was raised from the dead. Since he is thereby claiming it is "not difficult" to come up with a reasonable naturalistic explanation, then let him do it.OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it....So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.
1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc. What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.
2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.
Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.
Only yesterday you were saying that what's most important is whether it happens rather than how it happens, yet here Gordon is questioning the whether rather than the how if it did happen, but you gloss over that and jump straight to asking how. Double standards.
If you want to play fair, then the least you can do is explain how God resurrected Jesus.I don't know how God did it. If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to raise Jesus' body to life, would you? I'm quite happy to leave my contention open like that and people can come to the conclusion, if they like, that I have not supplied enough detail. If that is the case, so be it. I have never claimed to give details of how God did it. If Gordon is unable to come up with a scenario for his stance, then people can come to their own conclusions about that too.
OK. What means did they have? What motive did they have?OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it....So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.
1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc. What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.
2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.
Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.
Simple: someone (or some people) decided to promote the case for Jesus being divine by creating a fictitious propaganda that includes narrative elements (empty tomb, didn't stay dead, met people later etc) so as to convince the intended audience - propaganda on this basis has been with us throughout history, as I'm sure you well know.
See above.
If they did this in relation to Jesus then what they'd produce is quite possibly the sort of thing that the NT contains (inc. the resurrection biggie). The issue for those that believe this tale as per the NT claims, and I'm not one of those, is to show how propaganda (a known risk) can be dismissed.
As I've said before the resurrection story in the NT is indistinguishable from fiction so whether it actually happened at all has yet to be established, since if it didn't (in the sense of it being a historical fact) then 'how' is an irrelevant question.
This is incorrect. Gordon, as some others do, says, "None of the resurrection stuff... is difficult to fabricate into a story." OK, since it is not difficult, let him do it. He is claiming that that would be a more probable explanation of what really happened than that Jesus was raised from the dead. Since he is thereby claiming it is "not difficult" to come up with a reasonable naturalistic explanation, then let him do it.OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it....So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.
1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc. What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.
2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.
Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.
Only yesterday you were saying that what's most important is whether it happens rather than how it happens, yet here Gordon is questioning the whether rather than the how if it did happen, but you gloss over that and jump straight to asking how. Double standards.
QuoteIf you want to play fair, then the least you can do is explain how God resurrected Jesus.I don't know how God did it. If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to raise Jesus' body to life, would you? I'm quite happy to leave my contention open like that and people can come to the conclusion, if they like, that I have not supplied enough detail. If that is the case, so be it. I have never claimed to give details of how God did it. If Gordon is unable to come up with a scenario for his stance, then people can come to their own conclusions about that too.
OK. What means did they have? What motive did they have?OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it....So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.
1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc. What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.
2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.
Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.
Simple: someone (or some people) decided to promote the case for Jesus being divine by creating a fictitious propaganda that includes narrative elements (empty tomb, didn't stay dead, met people later etc) so as to convince the intended audience - propaganda on this basis has been with us throughout history, as I'm sure you well know.QuoteSee above.
If they did this in relation to Jesus then what they'd produce is quite possibly the sort of thing that the NT contains (inc. the resurrection biggie). The issue for those that believe this tale as per the NT claims, and I'm not one of those, is to show how propaganda (a known risk) can be dismissed.
As I've said before the resurrection story in the NT is indistinguishable from fiction so whether it actually happened at all has yet to be established, since if it didn't (in the sense of it being a historical fact) then 'how' is an irrelevant question.
If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to raise Jesus' body to life, would you?
This is incorrect. Gordon, as some others do, says, "None of the resurrection stuff... is difficult to fabricate into a story." OK, since it is not difficult, let him do it. He is claiming that that would be a more probable explanation of what really happened than that Jesus was raised from the dead. Since he is thereby claiming it is "not difficult" to come up with a reasonable naturalistic explanation, then let him do it.
But it hasn't ever been shown to add up, to cover the whole of the NT evidence and Josephus and Tacitus, etc. If you really think it is plausible, write out a scenario and we can look at it. Why the refusal to give some detail?This is incorrect. Gordon, as some others do, says, "None of the resurrection stuff... is difficult to fabricate into a story." OK, since it is not difficult, let him do it. He is claiming that that would be a more probable explanation of what really happened than that Jesus was raised from the dead. Since he is thereby claiming it is "not difficult" to come up with a reasonable naturalistic explanation, then let him do it.OK then, as I have asked people on various occasions in the past, give us a possible scenario for how it happened. It is no good just repeating that there is (at least) one if you don't demonstrate it....So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Oh come on, Alan, this isn't rocket science.
1. None of the resurrection stuff (empty tomb, after being dead Jesus had lunch with so-and-so) is difficult to fabricate into a story: pick any mythic-type tale with supernatural overtones and they will have events and encounters between characters etc. What you have are claims and not facts, as has been pointed out to you quite often.
2. Religious movements, and also political ones, can in the right circumstances grow arms and legs - so that a new religious narrative that references/builds on a previous one manages to becomes established in a time/place/culture where religiosity was the norm and people were credulous (there was lot of religion about!) isn't really that surprising.
Not only are you taking the NT too seriously, by treating claims as facts, you are avoiding dealing with the possibility of propaganda in this particular case.
Only yesterday you were saying that what's most important is whether it happens rather than how it happens, yet here Gordon is questioning the whether rather than the how if it did happen, but you gloss over that and jump straight to asking how. Double standards.
The point any ever makes here is that storeies/propaganda is more probable than a resurrection, as we have more evidence for the former
than the latter, the latter having so little and evidence to the contrary that we might as well say it's virtually impossible.But there is evidence. We have Jesus being killed, an empty tomb and individuals and groups seeing and talking and eating with Jesus afterwards. At least that is what they seem to have honestly believed. Why did they believe it? If they didn't believe it, why did they write the NT? What was their motive? Why did some of them devote themselves to what they knew to be a lie? Why did some die for what they knew to be a lie? Why won't you answer that question.
You're no different, otherwise you wouldn't see it as miraculous. If the probability was the other way around, then propaganda would be the miracleWhy not?QuoteQuoteIf you want to play fair, then the least you can do is explain how God resurrected Jesus.I don't know how God did it. If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to raise Jesus' body to life, would you? I'm quite happy to leave my contention open like that and people can come to the conclusion, if they like, that I have not supplied enough detail. If that is the case, so be it. I have never claimed to give details of how God did it. If Gordon is unable to come up with a scenario for his stance, then people can come to their own conclusions about that too.
If you don't know how God did it, then you can't claim it to be a miracle in the sense that the laws of nature were suspended/changed.
He claimed it was not difficult to come up with a scenario yet so far has refused to do so.
Whether Gordon can come up with a scenario or not is irrelevant.
No scernario, no matter how probable or improbable, can eliminate whether God was or wasn't involved in it.Eh?
...But why would they do it when some of them devoted their lives to it and suffered greatly for it, e.g. Paul being stoned, whipped and imprisoned? Why would some die for what they knew to be a lie? Why? Please answer that question. Why do you refuse to answer it?
Alan
Now you are being obtuse: if fictitious propaganda is involved then its aim is, presumably, to promote the spurious myth of the divinity of Jesus amongst the credulous using (in the absence of podcasts) word of mouth and/or written documents (obviously).
This is what propagandists would do: so it would be essential, surely, to rule out propaganda before taking the resurrection claim seriously, and since you do take it seriously (and I don't) then how have you done this; after all, there is a clear risk that you are a victim of propaganda yourself.
Why would he do it?If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to raise Jesus' body to life, would you?
If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to create some propaganda, would you?
See the point yet?
...But why would they do it when some of them devoted their lives to it and suffered greatly for it, e.g. Paul being stoned, whipped and imprisoned? Why would some die for what they knew to be a lie? Why? Please answer that question. Why do you refuse to answer it?
Alan
Now you are being obtuse: if fictitious propaganda is involved then its aim is, presumably, to promote the spurious myth of the divinity of Jesus amongst the credulous using (in the absence of podcasts) word of mouth and/or written documents (obviously).
This is what propagandists would do: so it would be essential, surely, to rule out propaganda before taking the resurrection claim seriously, and since you do take it seriously (and I don't) then how have you done this; after all, there is a clear risk that you are a victim of propaganda yourself.
Why would he do it?If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to raise Jesus' body to life, would you?
If God was able to create the universe, I would not think it would be difficult for him to create some propaganda, would you?
See the point yet?
So who could have set up this propaganda and when and how would they convince people it was all true? Why do you refuse to give us details?...But why would they do it when some of them devoted their lives to it and suffered greatly for it, e.g. Paul being stoned, whipped and imprisoned? Why would some die for what they knew to be a lie? Why? Please answer that question. Why do you refuse to answer it?
Alan
Now you are being obtuse: if fictitious propaganda is involved then its aim is, presumably, to promote the spurious myth of the divinity of Jesus amongst the credulous using (in the absence of podcasts) word of mouth and/or written documents (obviously).
This is what propagandists would do: so it would be essential, surely, to rule out propaganda before taking the resurrection claim seriously, and since you do take it seriously (and I don't) then how have you done this; after all, there is a clear risk that you are a victim of propaganda yourself.
I'm not - you just don't like what I've said, and it also seems you don't understand it either.
I have said that I think that the original claim of resurrection is most likely propaganda but I haven't said that I think that all those subsequently believing it knew that it was a lie, even those daft enough to knowingly die for it: they may well all have sincerely believed that Jesus was resurrected, just as you do.
Yes, we have been down this route umpteen times and never once have I claimed that someone believing something sincerely thereby makes their belief correct. Why do you bring up this red herring yet again?
We've been down this 'but they died for their beliefs' nonsense before - this may say something about them but it says nothing about the truth of their cause, since if you see this martyrdom test as demonstrating that Christianity is true then, for consistency, I assume you take the same position in respect of every suicide bomber in recent times.
Alan, can I also request that you stop trying to poison the well. You said I won't answer a question when I hadn't even been asked it prior, and also refused to give detail when I hadn't been given a request for some prior either. Slow down.In ##774? If so, yes, sorry, it was Gordon, not you. My sincere apologies.
On this board we do go over and over the same stuff. Again, I wonder whether I could be doing something more useful with my life.
We've also had an extensive conversation on this before, regarding standing claims up against our current understanding, but perhaps you've forgotten.
Alan, can I also request that you stop trying to poison the well. You said I won't answer a question when I hadn't even been asked it prior, and also refused to give detail when I hadn't been given a request for some prior either. Slow down.In ##774? If so, yes, sorry, it was Gordon, not you. My sincere apologies.
QuoteWe've also had an extensive conversation on this before, regarding standing claims up against our current understanding, but perhaps you've forgotten.On this board we do go over and over the same stuff. Again, I wonder whether I could be doing something more useful with my life.
So is he. :)Alan, can I also request that you stop trying to poison the well. You said I won't answer a question when I hadn't even been asked it prior, and also refused to give detail when I hadn't been given a request for some prior either. Slow down.In ##774? If so, yes, sorry, it was Gordon, not you. My sincere apologies.
No sweat, but I don't like seeing it aimed at others either. It's passive aggressive and you're usually better than that.
Why do you claim that?Because none, at least as far as I know, have anything like the evidence that Christianity has. Remember you need to account for the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, people as individuals and groups thinking they saw and/or ate with him on about a dozen occasions and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited and fearful people.Everything you say, which is like this, assumes these people, or people in general, were/are rational. Many religions have grown up with weird ideas and beliefs and have been followed by many people well after its creation. So why do you think these early Christians were any different? If many other religions/sects can have strange beliefs based on nothing then why not the sect that grew up 2000 years ago and which became Christianity?...So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.if
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Which explanation do you have which covers all those?
Its all a fabrication and it never happened.
Simple!
So who could have set up this propaganda and when and how would they convince people it was all true? Why do you refuse to give us details?
Yes, we have been down this route umpteen times and never once have I claimed that someone believing something sincerely thereby makes their belief correct. Why do you bring up this red herring yet again?
So not the best explanation then?Why do you claim that?Because none, at least as far as I know, have anything like the evidence that Christianity has. Remember you need to account for the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, people as individuals and groups thinking they saw and/or ate with him on about a dozen occasions and the start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited and fearful people.Everything you say, which is like this, assumes these people, or people in general, were/are rational. Many religions have grown up with weird ideas and beliefs and have been followed by many people well after its creation. So why do you think these early Christians were any different? If many other religions/sects can have strange beliefs based on nothing then why not the sect that grew up 2000 years ago and which became Christianity?...So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.if
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Which explanation do you have which covers all those?
Its all a fabrication and it never happened.
Simple!
Its the simplest explanation.
Er, that is what you are meant to be demonstrating, not just repeating.
People make things up all the time. When something written down claims a miracle, it should ALWAYS be ignored.
Er, yes. So what?So who could have set up this propaganda and when and how would they convince people it was all true? Why do you refuse to give us details?
I don't know any more than you know who actually wrote each and every bit of the NT: 'interested parties' is perhaps the best that can be said.
Even so, we have remarkable claims so that fabrication is a risk.Yes, I agree there is some risk of fabrication, but why do you think it is a significant risk?
I'm a stumped here, Gordon. I (and others) have explained this so many times in the past. Someone dying for cause they do not need to die for does not indicate that their belief is true (for the umpteenth time), but rather that they sincerely held that belief, i.e. they did not make it up. If they did not make it up we need to work out why they believed it. What led them to that belief?QuoteYes, we have been down this route umpteen times and never once have I claimed that someone believing something sincerely thereby makes their belief correct. Why do you bring up this red herring yet again?
Well you do keep mentioning that some Christians died, so I'm assuming you think this is significant.
Yes, I agree there is some risk of fabrication, but why do you think it is a significant risk?
After picking up a golf club that day for the very first time in his life, the Dear Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea fired a 38-under-par round of 34 at Pyongyang. According to the 17 security guards who observed the performance, the score included an amazing 11 aces. Naturally, the event was dutifully reported to the North Korean masses by the state news agency.
I'm a stumped here, Gordon. I (and others) have explained this so many times in the past. Someone dying for cause they do not need to die for does not indicate that their belief is true (for the umpteenth time), but rather that they sincerely held that belief, i.e. they did not make it up. If they did not make it up we need to work out why they believed it. What led them to that belief?
So not the best explanation then?Why do you claim that?Because none, at least as far as I know, have anything like the evidence that Christianity has. Remember you need to account for the death of Jesus, the empty tomb, people as individuals and groups thinking they saw and/or ate with him on about a dozen occasions and tbhhe start of the Christian church from a bunch of previously dispirited and fearful people.Everything you say, which is like this, assumes these people, or people in general, were/are rational. Many religions have grown up with weird ideas and beliefs and have been followed by many people well after its creation. So why do you think these early Christians were any different? If many other religions/sects can have strange beliefs based on nothing then why not the sect that grew up 2000 years ago and which became Christianity?...So are you really of the opinion that the Christian church was founded on propaganda which said that Jesus had died when he hadn't, that he was seen on about a dozen occasions alive and well afterwards, that the tomb (if he had died) was not really empty and that people then endured persecution and sometimes death to spread this propaganda. What would have been their motive? How did they manage to convince everyone?
That the whole story in fictional propaganda is a perfectly coherent explanation where both exaggerating and adding fictitious claims for effect are surely par for the course: so, all this stuff you keep citing about so and so seeing Jesus later would be trivially easy to add and and also fit with the desired portrayal of Jesus for future consumption.if
I'm struggling why you are sticking limpet-like to these NT claims as if they were facts: and they can't be considered as being likely facts, and especially give the supernatural elements involved, until the risk of propaganda has been properly addressed.
Which explanation do you have which covers all those?
Its all a fabrication and it never happened.
Simple!
Its the simplest explanation.QuoteEr, that is what you are meant to be demonstrating, not just repeating.
People make things up all the time. When something written down claims a miracle, it should ALWAYS be ignored.
So what would there motivation be to be "creative"? So that some of them could lead a life of hardship and some get killed for it (2 Corinthians 11:23-27, for example)? So that they could be persecuted by their fellow Jews (Acts 8:1, for example)? In their creativity, how did they manage to stop the Jewish authorities from showing people Jesus' corpse? How did they manage to convince Paul, their persecutor, to follow Jesus? How did they manage to convince so many people that Jesus had risen from the dead? How did they pull this all off?Yes, I agree there is some risk of fabrication, but why do you think it is a significant risk?
Because things to do with people are routine, and people being 'creative' in support of a cause is one example of this. So, when there are remarkable claims made in the form of anecdotes from interested parties then then risk of fabrication is significant, and would be irrespective of the details.
And who are the independent witnesses here? Names, please.
The story about the golf skills of North Korean dictator is a good example - it is 'official' too, but the question is do we believe it (and no supernatural add-ons here);QuoteAfter picking up a golf club that day for the very first time in his life, the Dear Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea fired a 38-under-par round of 34 at Pyongyang. According to the 17 security guards who observed the performance, the score included an amazing 11 aces. Naturally, the event was dutifully reported to the North Korean masses by the state news agency.
http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/alltime_golf_scoring_record_goes_with_death_of_kim_jong_il
So what was the effective propaganda that so convinced Peter of Jesus' resurrection that he was prepared to die for this belief (1 Clement)? How did they manage to convince Jesus' half brother James (Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1)). I'd be particularly interested in your explanation of how Peter would have been diddled into thinking Jesus was alive.QuoteI'm a stumped here, Gordon. I (and others) have explained this so many times in the past. Someone dying for cause they do not need to die for does not indicate that their belief is true (for the umpteenth time), but rather that they sincerely held that belief, i.e. they did not make it up. If they did not make it up we need to work out why they believed it. What led them to that belief?
Effective propaganda, with perhaps some added fallacious arguments from authority from early Christian leaders? That would do the job nicely.
No, they are not. Just because an explanation is simple does not mean it is thereby the best one. You know that.So not the best explanation then?Why do you claim that?
...
Its all a fabrication and it never happened.
Simple!
Its the simplest explanation.QuoteEr, that is what you are meant to be demonstrating, not just repeating.
People make things up all the time. When something written down claims a miracle, it should ALWAYS be ignored.
I do not need to demonstrate that, thems the rules.
No, they are not. Just because an explanation is simple does not mean it is thereby the best one. You know that.So not the best explanation then?Why do you claim that?
...
Its all a fabrication and it never happened.
Simple!
Its the simplest explanation.QuoteEr, that is what you are meant to be demonstrating, not just repeating.
People make things up all the time. When something written down claims a miracle, it should ALWAYS be ignored.
I do not need to demonstrate that, thems the rules.
No, that is incorrect.No, they are not. Just because an explanation is simple does not mean it is thereby the best one. You know that.So not the best explanation then?Why do you claim that?
...
Its all a fabrication and it never happened.
Simple!
Its the simplest explanation.QuoteEr, that is what you are meant to be demonstrating, not just repeating.
People make things up all the time. When something written down claims a miracle, it should ALWAYS be ignored.
I do not need to demonstrate that, thems the rules.
Yes they are.
Anecdotal claims of miracles must always be ignored.
No, they are not. See http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10415.msg533156#msg533156
That's the rules.
See above.
Anyone who accepts miracle claims is a gullible fool.
AlanThe reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.
You are missing the point.
The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.
Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?
AlanThe reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.
You are missing the point.
The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.
Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?
They are separate books, e.g. Matthew, Luke, John, Acts (but written by Luke), 1 Corinthians which give details of the witnesses and Mark's gospel tells of the empty tomb (but not of anyone speaking to Jesus).AlanThe reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.
You are missing the point.
The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.
Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?
What witnesses do you have?
Are they in the same book?
They are separate books, e.g. Matthew, Luke, John, Acts (but written by Luke), 1 Corinthians which give details of the witnesses and Mark's gospel tells of the empty tomb (but not of anyone speaking to Jesus).AlanThe reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.
You are missing the point.
The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.
Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?
What witnesses do you have?
Are they in the same book?
AlanThe reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.
You are missing the point.
The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.
Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?
Edited? In what way? Are you saying that the stuff about the resurrection was added later?They are separate books, e.g. Matthew, Luke, John, Acts (but written by Luke), 1 Corinthians which give details of the witnesses and Mark's gospel tells of the empty tomb (but not of anyone speaking to Jesus).AlanThe reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.
You are missing the point.
The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.
Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?
What witnesses do you have?
Are they in the same book?
These are all part of the bible that has been edited.
You may not know who wrote the gospels, but don't tar us all with the same brush, please.
You do not even know wrote ANY of the gospels. No one does.
Er, that is the case with all history from more than a generation ago.
And even that does not matter, as it's just words in a book, you cannot check if it is true.
N/a.
So, no witnesses no external corroboration.
It would help if you read people's replies. We have discussed sai baba before and I have pointed you to examples, including videos, where he has been shown to fiddle things.
As I always point out, there is masses of this sort on evidence and witness testimony for sai baba, and for alien abduction.
Videos are better.
In fact there is far more, and you could even talk to living witnesses.
So, how did I come be a Christian from being an atheist then?
The only reason you give the bible myth a free ride, is due to confirmation bias. It says what you want to hear.
Because what you write is incorrect.
Why can you not see this?
And their names are? Come on, Gordon. If you are going to say that this is equivalent to what is recorded in the gospels, back it up. The gospels and a couple of other NT books give names of the witnesses.AlanThe reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.
You are missing the point.
The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.
Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?
Nope - according to the report I quoted the golf feat was witnessed by security guards - I don't believe them though, since I suspect their accounts are outright propaganda.
Edited? In what way? Are you saying that the stuff about the resurrection was added later?They are separate books, e.g. Matthew, Luke, John, Acts (but written by Luke), 1 Corinthians which give details of the witnesses and Mark's gospel tells of the empty tomb (but not of anyone speaking to Jesus).AlanThe reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.
You are missing the point.
The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.
Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?
What witnesses do you have?
Are they in the same book?
These are all part of the bible that has been edited.QuoteYou may not know who wrote the gospels, but don't tar us all with the same brush, please.
You do not even know wrote ANY of the gospels. No one does.QuoteEr, that is the case with all history from more than a generation ago.
And even that does not matter, as it's just words in a book, you cannot check if it is true.QuoteN/a.
So, no witnesses no external corroboration.QuoteIt would help if you read people's replies. We have discussed sai baba before and I have pointed you to examples, including videos, where he has been shown to fiddle things.
As I always point out, there is masses of this sort on evidence and witness testimony for sai baba, and for alien abduction.QuoteVideos are better.
In fact there is far more, and you could even talk to living witnesses.QuoteSo, how did I come be a Christian from being an atheist then?
The only reason you give the bible myth a free ride, is due to confirmation bias. It says what you want to hear.QuoteBecause what you write is incorrect.
Why can you not see this?
And their names are? Come on, Gordon. If you are going to say that this is equivalent to what is recorded in the gospels, back it up. The gospels and a couple of other NT books give names of the witnesses.AlanThe reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.
You are missing the point.
The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.
Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?
Nope - according to the report I quoted the golf feat was witnessed by security guards - I don't believe them though, since I suspect their accounts are outright propaganda.
What are the names of the N. Korean witnesses?
And their names are? Come on, Gordon. If you are going to say that this is equivalent to what is recorded in the gospels, back it up. The gospels and a couple of other NT books give names of the witnesses.AlanThe reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.
You are missing the point.
The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.
Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?
Nope - according to the report I quoted the golf feat was witnessed by security guards - I don't believe them though, since I suspect their accounts are outright propaganda.
What are the names of the N. Korean witnesses?
...Yes, I have looked into it in depth and have found no good reason to doubt that it was the people to whom they were traditionally ascribed.
You do not claim to know who wrote the gospels surely?
So how does your not knowing mean I can't know.
No one knows who wrote the gospels as far as I know.
Which committee was this and when?
The bible has been edited and a comittee as I understand it even decided what is in and what is out.
Why not?
You cannot know that anything in the bible or collection of stories bears any relation to fact.
I don't just assume it.
When what is being written about contravenes the known laws of physics, you should immediately ignore it, and assume they are lying, deluded, or mistaken. What you are not allowed to do is assume that what they wrote was true. It's just not allowed.
N/a.
Also, if you are to take what is written in the bible as true, why do you not accept every other loony tunes writing?
N/a.
This can only be confirmation bias.
Did you not read my previous posts earlier today? I explained there.
Do you believe the miracles of sai baba
Do you believe aliens are routinely inspecting the bottoms of US citizens.Pass. I've not seen any good evidence that they are. Do you have any?
Bearing in mind your demonstrable errors earlier about the provenance of the NT, I would not think you are in a position to make that claim with any reliability.
If not, why not? They have more evidence than your bible, and you can even speak to living EYE witnesses.
So who are these "people who could be questioned today"? No-one has come up with any names so why should any of us believer there are any "people who could be questioned today"?And their names are? Come on, Gordon. If you are going to say that this is equivalent to what is recorded in the gospels, back it up. The gospels and a couple of other NT books give names of the witnesses.AlanThe reason I asked for the names of the witnesses from the North Korean golf story is because there are none. In the case of Jesus' resurrection we have some. That is the one of the differences.
You are missing the point.
The details of the story (whatever these are) could be contrived in order to promote the cause of Jesus after his death: this being a scenario in which propaganda is a risk - 'keeping the dream alive' sums it up nicely. You keep assuming that these claims are facts and that the motivations of those you mention are all clearly understood, and you seem unable to countenance even the possibility that all might not be as it seems - some of the things you cite could be lies.
Hence the North Korean golf story - surprised you are asking me for names since in spite of it being 'official' it is quite clearly propaganda that is too ridiculous to believe: can you see the similarity?
Nope - according to the report I quoted the golf feat was witnessed by security guards - I don't believe them though, since I suspect their accounts are outright propaganda.
What are the names of the N. Korean witnesses?
Are you really saying that a few names in your 2000 year old book is better evidence than people who could be questioned today! Of course the security guards are lying through their teeth, we can all see that it's a nonsense. Sadly it's only you who can't see that putting a few names in a book means nothing at all!
Even if you could tell us where they lived, what they did, what they believed before all this and how we could tell they were honest ... we still wouldn't know if they were gullible or in on the scam or just scammed themselves. They are just names that could have been thought up in a few minutes by the writers of this episode.
I think Alien is a bit of a lost cause.For the reasons I have given.
Logic and reason have little value.
Words in his book are really really true.
Words in other books of course he can quickly dismiss.
So with your North Korean witnesses we have no good reason to believe them and every reason to disbelieve them. For this to be a valid analogy, please tell us why we have no good reason to believe the NT witnesses and every reason to disbelieve them....And their names are? Come on, Gordon. If you are going to say that this is equivalent to what is recorded in the gospels, back it up. The gospels and a couple of other NT books give names of the witnesses.
What are the names of the N. Korean witnesses?
Who knows, and who cares since that isn't the point, as I'm sure you realise: they might not even exist, which fits with how propaganda works.
However, we have an authoritative report that says that a) there was a remarkable event, and b) there were witnesses. I'm inclined to disbelieve both a) and b)! My point is that this report isn't credible based on anecdotal report of witness who, if they exist, may be telling lies in support of their cause - there is the same risk with the NT.
So with your North Korean witnesses we have no good reason to believe them and every reason to disbelieve them. For this to be a valid analogy, please tell us why we have no good reason to believe the NT witnesses and every reason to disbelieve them....And their names are? Come on, Gordon. If you are going to say that this is equivalent to what is recorded in the gospels, back it up. The gospels and a couple of other NT books give names of the witnesses.
What are the names of the N. Korean witnesses?
Who knows, and who cares since that isn't the point, as I'm sure you realise: they might not even exist, which fits with how propaganda works.
However, we have an authoritative report that says that a) there was a remarkable event, and b) there were witnesses. I'm inclined to disbelieve both a) and b)! My point is that this report isn't credible based on anecdotal report of witness who, if they exist, may be telling lies in support of their cause - there is the same risk with the NT.
You do realise that if you can't do that it is not a valid analogy, don't you?
So why should I trust your statement to be honest and not the NT statements? After all, human artifice, Gordon, should never be under-estimated.So with your North Korean witnesses we have no good reason to believe them and every reason to disbelieve them. For this to be a valid analogy, please tell us why we have no good reason to believe the NT witnesses and every reason to disbelieve them....And their names are? Come on, Gordon. If you are going to say that this is equivalent to what is recorded in the gospels, back it up. The gospels and a couple of other NT books give names of the witnesses.
What are the names of the N. Korean witnesses?
Who knows, and who cares since that isn't the point, as I'm sure you realise: they might not even exist, which fits with how propaganda works.
However, we have an authoritative report that says that a) there was a remarkable event, and b) there were witnesses. I'm inclined to disbelieve both a) and b)! My point is that this report isn't credible based on anecdotal report of witness who, if they exist, may be telling lies in support of their cause - there is the same risk with the NT.
You do realise that if you can't do that it is not a valid analogy, don't you?
Simple.
Considering the NT claims (about a dead person not staying dead), and with a similar application of inductive reasoning as per the claim of unbelievable golf tells us, as you say, that 'we have no good reason to believe the NT witnesses and every reason to disbelieve them', since 3-day dead people always stay dead (ask any undertaker for confirmation that this is so)
Human artifice, Alan, should never be under-estimated.
Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their reporting.
Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their interpretation.
Such as?Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their reporting.
Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their interpretation.
Questions that you haven't even come close to answering.
Such as?Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their reporting.
Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their interpretation.
Questions that you haven't even come close to answering.
No, it isn't. For it to be a lie it would need to be a false statement and intentionally so.So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers)
This is a lie.
No, it isn't. For it to be a lie it would need to be a false statement and intentionally so.So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers)
This is a lie.
You know for a fact that two of the synoptic accounts were copied from the third.
Documents are not independent if they all rely on the same source. At least three of the four gospels are interdependent
But those three gospels use at least four sources between them (M, Q, L and Mark). Possibly a couple of others as well.
what is your definition of independent, then? You can't just keep on saying "no, that doesn't count as independent" whenever a source is cited.They must trace back to different witnesses.
So what would there motivation be to be "creative"? So that some of them could lead a life of hardship and some get killed for it (2 Corinthians 11:23-27, for example)? So that they could be persecuted by their fellow Jews (Acts 8:1, for example)?
In their creativity, how did they manage to stop the Jewish authorities from showing people Jesus' corpse?
How did they manage to convince Paul, their persecutor, to follow Jesus?
So why should I trust your statement to be honest and not the NT statements? After all, human artifice, Gordon, should never be under-estimated.So with your North Korean witnesses we have no good reason to believe them and every reason to disbelieve them. For this to be a valid analogy, please tell us why we have no good reason to believe the NT witnesses and every reason to disbelieve them....And their names are? Come on, Gordon. If you are going to say that this is equivalent to what is recorded in the gospels, back it up. The gospels and a couple of other NT books give names of the witnesses.
What are the names of the N. Korean witnesses?
Who knows, and who cares since that isn't the point, as I'm sure you realise: they might not even exist, which fits with how propaganda works.
However, we have an authoritative report that says that a) there was a remarkable event, and b) there were witnesses. I'm inclined to disbelieve both a) and b)! My point is that this report isn't credible based on anecdotal report of witness who, if they exist, may be telling lies in support of their cause - there is the same risk with the NT.
You do realise that if you can't do that it is not a valid analogy, don't you?
Simple.
Considering the NT claims (about a dead person not staying dead), and with a similar application of inductive reasoning as per the claim of unbelievable golf tells us, as you say, that 'we have no good reason to believe the NT witnesses and every reason to disbelieve them', since 3-day dead people always stay dead (ask any undertaker for confirmation that this is so)
Human artifice, Alan, should never be under-estimated.
I think Alien is a bit of a lost cause.
Logic and reason have little value.
Words in his book are really really true.
Words in other books of course he can quickly dismiss.
I think Alien is a bit of a lost cause.
Logic and reason have little value.
Words in his book are really really true.
Words in other books of course he can quickly dismiss.
Cue BR leaving!
Why?I commend your optimism, but it doesn't work :(
Pointing out that Alien makes obvious mistakes, may help him not make them in future.
I think Alien is a bit of a lost cause.
Logic and reason have little value.
Words in his book are really really true.
Words in other books of course he can quickly dismiss.
Cue BR leaving!
Why?
Pointing out that Alien makes obvious mistakes, may help him not make them in future.
I think Alien is a bit of a lost cause.
Logic and reason have little value.
Words in his book are really really true.
Words in other books of course he can quickly dismiss.
Cue BR leaving!
Why?
Pointing out that Alien makes obvious mistakes, may help him not make them in future.
Don't be so condescending!
I think Alien is a bit of a lost cause.
Logic and reason have little value.
Words in his book are really really true.
Words in other books of course he can quickly dismiss.
Cue BR leaving!
Why?
Pointing out that Alien makes obvious mistakes, may help him not make them in future.
Don't be so condescending!
Pointing out the truth is condescending now?
He claims that Jesus rose from the dead because it is written in a book that some people claimed to have eaten with him later.
That is crazy, and wrong.
I think Alien is a bit of a lost cause.
Logic and reason have little value.
Words in his book are really really true.
Words in other books of course he can quickly dismiss.
Cue BR leaving!
Why?
Pointing out that Alien makes obvious mistakes, may help him not make them in future.
Don't be so condescending!
Pointing out the truth is condescending now?
He claims that Jesus rose from the dead because it is written in a book that some people claimed to have eaten with him later.
That is crazy, and wrong.
And of course you know, and have the definitive answer to it all. Not only condescending, but arrogant, too.
Eh?Such as?Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their reporting.
Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their interpretation.
Questions that you haven't even come close to answering.
The two that you mentioned in your post that I quoted.
It is highly probable that Matthew and Luke had access to a copy of Mark when they were writing their own accounts (and maybe Luke had a copy of Matthew as well). That does not mean that everything in Luke and Matthew were copied from Mark, as you know. Of particular interest is whether the crucifixion and resurrection accounts in Matthew and Luke were copied from Mark (and, possibly, Luke copying his crucifixion and resurrection accounts from Matthew). That Matthew and Luke's accounts on the resurrection are independent of Mark is blindingly obvious as Mark has no record of anyone meeting the risen Jesus. There are other parts of their crucifixion and resurrection accounts which are independent of Mark's (and of each other's). They are different and record some different things. Isn't that why you have claimed in the past that they are incompatible?No, it isn't. For it to be a lie it would need to be a false statement and intentionally so.So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers)
This is a lie.
You know for a fact that two of the synoptic accounts were copied from the third.
Possibly. Some scholars do not believe there ever was a Q. If interested in that view, look up Mark Goodacre on Google. He seems to put this across well.No, it isn't. For it to be a lie it would need to be a false statement and intentionally so.So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers)
This is a lie.
You know for a fact that two of the synoptic accounts were copied from the third.
Using other sources as well, though. Luke used Mark + L + Q, Matthew used Mark + M + Q
... Unfortunately, they could all derive from one oral source, so we really can't say that they are independent....That would be Jesus then.
... Unfortunately, they could all derive from one oral source, so we really can't say that they are independent....That would be Jesus then.
Yes and? What is your point?So what would there motivation be to be "creative"? So that some of them could lead a life of hardship and some get killed for it (2 Corinthians 11:23-27, for example)? So that they could be persecuted by their fellow Jews (Acts 8:1, for example)?
Do you really think Christians are the only people who have died for a cause? People died for the cause of removing Saddam Hussein before he could use his weapons of mass destruction. Come to think of it, people died for the cause of keeping Hussein in power.
And the evidence for this is what?QuoteIn their creativity, how did they manage to stop the Jewish authorities from showing people Jesus' corpse?
Do you know how quickly a corpse in a mass grave decomposes?
Maybe they did produce the body. Perhaps that is why not all Jews are converted to Christianity.
For us, yes. And?QuoteHow did they manage to convince Paul, their persecutor, to follow Jesus?
It's a damned sight easier to persuade an enemy to join your cause than to resurrect a dead body.
Nope. I take you to be honest. I have no evidence to the contrary. I take the NT accounts to be honest. I have no evidence to the contrary.So why should I trust your statement to be honest and not the NT statements? After all, human artifice, Gordon, should never be under-estimated.So with your North Korean witnesses we have no good reason to believe them and every reason to disbelieve them. For this to be a valid analogy, please tell us why we have no good reason to believe the NT witnesses and every reason to disbelieve them....And their names are? Come on, Gordon. If you are going to say that this is equivalent to what is recorded in the gospels, back it up. The gospels and a couple of other NT books give names of the witnesses.
What are the names of the N. Korean witnesses?
Who knows, and who cares since that isn't the point, as I'm sure you realise: they might not even exist, which fits with how propaganda works.
However, we have an authoritative report that says that a) there was a remarkable event, and b) there were witnesses. I'm inclined to disbelieve both a) and b)! My point is that this report isn't credible based on anecdotal report of witness who, if they exist, may be telling lies in support of their cause - there is the same risk with the NT.
You do realise that if you can't do that it is not a valid analogy, don't you?
Simple.
Considering the NT claims (about a dead person not staying dead), and with a similar application of inductive reasoning as per the claim of unbelievable golf tells us, as you say, that 'we have no good reason to believe the NT witnesses and every reason to disbelieve them', since 3-day dead people always stay dead (ask any undertaker for confirmation that this is so)
Human artifice, Alan, should never be under-estimated.
So, my pointing out to you that people being potentially dishonest in support of a cause is a dishonest position for me to hold to?
Yes, it would be. However, that is not the claim I have made. It misses out important stuff.I think Alien is a bit of a lost cause.
Logic and reason have little value.
Words in his book are really really true.
Words in other books of course he can quickly dismiss.
Cue BR leaving!
Why?
Pointing out that Alien makes obvious mistakes, may help him not make them in future.
Don't be so condescending!
Pointing out the truth is condescending now?
He claims that Jesus rose from the dead because it is written in a book that some people claimed to have eaten with him later.
That is crazy, and wrong.
AlienThanks for the laugh.
I see you are not answering my posts. Am I too tough for you? Have I shown you what your position really is, flawed and misguided?!
Because he is the person the gospels were written about and the person they mainly quoted?... Unfortunately, they could all derive from one oral source, so we really can't say that they are independent....That would be Jesus then.
Why?
Because he is the person the gospels were written about and the person they mainly quoted?... Unfortunately, they could all derive from one oral source, so we really can't say that they are independent....That would be Jesus then.
Why?
Because he is the person the gospels were written about and the person they mainly quoted?... Unfortunately, they could all derive from one oral source, so we really can't say that they are independent....That would be Jesus then.
Why?
It was no laugh mate I was being serious!!! ;DAlienThanks for the laugh.
I see you are not answering my posts. Am I too tough for you? Have I shown you what your position really is, flawed and misguided?!
Which posts have I missed? Please do always remind me if I miss any. Seriously.
Nope. I take you to be honest. I have no evidence to the contrary. I take the NT accounts to be honest. I have no evidence to the contrary.So why should I trust your statement to be honest and not the NT statements? After all, human artifice, Gordon, should never be under-estimated.So with your North Korean witnesses we have no good reason to believe them and every reason to disbelieve them. For this to be a valid analogy, please tell us why we have no good reason to believe the NT witnesses and every reason to disbelieve them....And their names are? Come on, Gordon. If you are going to say that this is equivalent to what is recorded in the gospels, back it up. The gospels and a couple of other NT books give names of the witnesses.
What are the names of the N. Korean witnesses?
Who knows, and who cares since that isn't the point, as I'm sure you realise: they might not even exist, which fits with how propaganda works.
However, we have an authoritative report that says that a) there was a remarkable event, and b) there were witnesses. I'm inclined to disbelieve both a) and b)! My point is that this report isn't credible based on anecdotal report of witness who, if they exist, may be telling lies in support of their cause - there is the same risk with the NT.
You do realise that if you can't do that it is not a valid analogy, don't you?
Simple.
Considering the NT claims (about a dead person not staying dead), and with a similar application of inductive reasoning as per the claim of unbelievable golf tells us, as you say, that 'we have no good reason to believe the NT witnesses and every reason to disbelieve them', since 3-day dead people always stay dead (ask any undertaker for confirmation that this is so)
Human artifice, Alan, should never be under-estimated.
So, my pointing out to you that people being potentially dishonest in support of a cause is a dishonest position for me to hold to?
That would seem to be the consistent thing to do.
Alan (Your post 570)Nope. When discussing with people on a UK board about Christianity I would think that most people here (and in the UK population in general) would have an idea of God as being as above. Even if that were not true we are on the Christian Topic board and it fits with the Christian concept of God. You will hopefully have noticed when I write things like, "It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God". The KCA takes us to a deistic-like God, but says nothing about whether he would intervene in the universe he has created. As I say, if you can come up with a better term, please do tell us.
Except that they do. For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is.
2} But I did think of something better than God in the sense that it is more appropriate, "Something".
How is that more appropriate?
This is one issue I'd like to get sorted out so I'd like it to be done as a separate line of posts. The context is the philosophical arguments you gave on your post 92.
The word God is not a neutral term. It means different things to different people depending on their religion and even factions within religions and even to people who may not be practicing a religion may still hold some notions of the word God because of their culture. These various meanings and notions to these people form some manner of loose definitions of God for them which are not inherent in the philosophical arguments you have presented in 92. It is therefore disingenuous to use the term God in this context and effectively surreptitiously makes a link to your Christian God, from these philosophical arguments, which is not there and is unfounded.
That's cobblers. See above.
There is nothing in philosophy which can deal with the issue of God as the word is specific to religions alone, where a particular, though not always full, definition and notion of it is given depending on the religion in question. The best that philosophy can do is come up with some vague term like "Something", as God is a totally unknown quantity and lacks even the basic notional outlines.
See above. I would be rather suprised if you and others on this board do not know what I mean when I use the generic term "God". If you didn't know before this post, you do now.
You have to admit that the word God to you means something specific which is related to your Christian faith and you therefore have to admit that the word God to others of different faiths will mean something else and therefore it can't be used as a generic term as you have used it in 92. I hope you will agree and amend the material you have presented in 92.
Alan (your 570 cont.)Is it? Is it really? Did anyone tell Einstein this?
from 2} As you admit the primal cause could be anything even a force or 'mechanism' of some law or pattern of energy.
No, I haven't "admitted" that. If it were something physical, the start of the universe would not be the start of the universe, if you see what I mean.
Firstly, I would use the word "Something" instead of God. Also, the force or energy I'm referring to could be something non-physical, but the Kalam argument has a lot of assumptions in it which I don't agree with. One, time is a metaphysical notion of our mind created by our memories
and there is no reason why matter etc. could not have always exited.The BGV theorem, at least according to Vilenkin, seems to show otherwise. Then there are the philosophical arguments against an infinite number of events in the past. Hilbert's Grand Hotel and the like.
Are quantum fields matter/physical?Yes. And?
Is energy physical or of something 'solid'?Eh?
When I gave the list of reasons why I continue to have a Christian faith, I was not intending to have to defend all of them on one thread. I would be happy for you to pick one of them and start a new thread on it, but I don't have the time to do all of them at once.
-----------------------
3} 'Objective morality, if correct,...' - again big if. You can't use as an argument something which is far from shown to be even vaguely plausible. [Anyway this moral element could be a separate issue, something independent of the creation act itself and not at all associated with its functional framework.
How?
If the universe came about by a 'force' then forces are not moral actions. When a chemical reaction occurs it has no moral status. If a tree falls on you that action is not a moral one it is just your bad luck. It is quite reasonable to think that whatever brought about the universe it had no moral status.
---------------------
4} If some atheists do say this then they are idiots. I would amend your b) by replacing God with "Something"; and replacing God in all your philosophical arguments with "Something". The word God only truly enters the arena when one starts dealing with religion which is its domain.
Call it what you like, but it would be timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful and plausibly personal. That's a lowest common denominator idea of God in most people's use of the word.
Your last sentence has the word God in it and as I have explained in another post you can't use the word God in the context of a philosophical argument.
As I explained about morals with regards to 'forces' so it is true of the idea of being personal. The tree falling on you does not do it from a personal consideration, it is impersonal. There is no reason to assume that the 'forces' or whatever that brought about the universe had any personality or individuality or character to them/it.
As I see it time is a product of our memory. Light travelling at the speed of L in a vacuum is everywhere, hence the ideas of general relativity, and so space cesses to have meaning. Non-material I've explained above; quantum fields? And being immensely power, well that is just a relative term.
------------------
5} As I was not there to see this Jesus fellow and all these claims about him I can only leave these details on the shelves with the rest of the history books, dipping into them for my amusement.
That's rather patronising. Because you were not there to see this Jesus fellow (or Augustus Caesar or Tiberius Caesar or Napolean or Elizabeth I or Ghengis Khan am I to understand that you are uncertain about them existing and the major events of their lives?
What I'm saying is that whether they did exist or not does not govern how I live my life. It is only a possible account of history which has little to no consequence for my life; hence for my amusement. If they are not happy with my attitude then they are free to come and tell me. ;D
-------------------
6} A better explanation would be is that we just don't know how
Why is that is a better explanation?
Because it is the truth. You know?...the truth will set you free!
-------------------
6 cont.} and why these things got to be written down (or what was altered later on). We are fallible and are unable to think of every possibility that could explain an event which we never saw. Are you saying every myth and fable or whatever is true?
No. That's a silly question. In any situation we are fallible and are unable to think of every possibility etc. Why do you only bring this up when speaking about Jesus? Because it would rock your world if it were true?
I do not just bring this up when speaking about Jesus. You only think that because that is the only time we engage in any significant way. What would it rock my world?
----------------
7} What I meant was that probability is a myth created from mankind's point of view. Either something occurs or it doesn't. It is only our perspective on things that creates in our minds this probability stuff.
Really? Why do you claim this?
Because that is what happens in real life. Either something occurs or it doesn't. It is only our prior speculation, because we do not understand it fully, that we come up with these probable outcome events. When we know what will happen we do not apply our probability theories as this would be pointless.
----------------
8} But how does one evaluate a value for such things, who decides that this or that explanation warrants a given value of probability. It's sheer stupidity because no one can.
Yet you and I do this all the time in our lives? Do you know for certain that you will survive a bus trip or driving into work? You seem very inconsistent.
You need reliable information to make judgements. Information you personally know to be reliable. What some geezer wrote 2000 years ago is not reliable. This is the problem with man kind is that his hubris takes him into impossible areas like the EU project and the banking system and so on. He thinks he know but in fact he know nearly bugger all, and is then surprised when everything goes tits up!!!
So just as I take risks in my life based on past experience and on as much information that I can acquire so you are saying taking the NT as the truth is nothing more than a risk; chance taking, the throw the dice? That your faith is nothing more than a "what if", "whatever", see how the runes fall, a blind grab at chance?
---------------------
8 cont.} Your example is restrictive and conditional on an idea of function and as such will naturally result in the result you say it will give. If I say to you you can go anywhere except Paul's cathedral and then declare you will never enter Paul's cathedral it is no big shakes is it...? The whole thing is fixed i.e. a sophistic game.
Why do you think that is pertinent to what I wrote?
It's like Zeno's paradox about halving the distance to the finish line. This is a time restrictive action and so you will never get there. It is a stupid paradox because it is sheer bollocks.
So why do you think that is relevant to the creation of the NT documents?1} So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers, but at least a dozen if we count the people who claimed to have seen Jesus) now becomes "duplication of the available tittle-tattle". I was hoping for a serious discussion with you.1) No, at least 5 books written 2000 years ago.How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?And how do you know that they knew it wasn't a lie? All you have to gauge this is a book written 2000 years ago.Quote2) Oh good grief, this one has been done to death. No-one is claiming it thereby meant it was true. When will you lot stop making out as if our lot ever claim that?
If they believed it to be true that belief is no proof that what they believed was true,Quotejust that they were in emotional need for it to be seen by them as being true3) And how does it prove that? What a silly claim.Quote4) Slaps head.You have no proof that they did!!! All you have is that some people wrote that, which proves nothing. All you have is speculation!!!Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?
1) I was referring to the NT but the number of books is neither here nor there. It all means is the duplication of the available tittle-tattle.Quote2}Know 100%? Correct. Know enough to base my life upon it? Yes, I do know that well enough.
2) You only have yourself to blame for this. You can't claim they knew that the events were fact when quite clearly you don't know that.QuoteThat's my whole argument here about what you actually know to be true about what happened 2000 years ago. Oh yeah, that's right, you weren't there to see it!!!!3} What a weird criterion. So we should only believe things we have seen ourselves? Are you serious?Quote4} What was my need then?
3) People join religions because they have a need.QuoteQuite obviously they were waiting for the messiah and all that and this new cult of following Jesus fitted the bill.5} Oh, well put. It was what was predicted beforehand. Thanks for that endorsement.QuoteIt's just human nature to what to be loved and all that and to feel secure and safe.6} <snigger/>Quote7} If you want to know its content, may I suggest you read it. That's what other people do.
4) Slaps head. What ever floats your boat.
The only fact you have here is that the NT was written by men. Its content is just speculation.
1} I could have used the word gossip or rumours but you know how it works, ideas get multiplied by constant exchange. We see this type of thing all the time, it part of our human nature.
That's incorrect. Have a bit of a read. If you are serious about this I would suggest "An Introduction to the New Testament" by Carson and Moo.
2} And what do you really know about it? All you have are manuscripts written 2000 years ago and you don't even know why or how they came about, just guesswork. And on this you fashion the whole of your life - on pure speculation and guesswork.
I have investigated it for nearly 40 years now.
3} I didn't say believe. I would never use that term in this context. You can't say that something is a fact just because some stranger has told you it is so, and you haven't investigated it personally to see if it is true.
Why do you think that is relevant to my understanding of what happened?
This is my whole point of my argument! You can't fashion the fundamental aspect of your life on some "What ifs.".
Are you aware of all your psychological needs? Which need was it which overruled my scientific mind when I first looked at this stuff in depth when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge?
4} Your need? As in all these cases it is a psychological one and one which you may not be fully aware of. Again, some understanding of human nature and some self introspection of one's nature and person is needed here to fully see what is going on.
Pass. I can't see what I was responding to.
5} Don't understand this comment. It sounds like some kind of sour grapes response?
I was hoping for a serious discussion with you.
Pass. I can't see what this was referring to.
6} Yes, well, I think you've found your level there. Is this the response you give your fellow church goers when they get all touchy-feely as you put it? Very loving indeed!!!
I was hoping for a serious discussion with you.
So you allege.
7} That is the whole point of my argument. Because the evidence is so weak
and relies on pure speculationSo you allege.
no firm conclusion can be acquired to justify taking it as a basis for one to live one's life by, to fashion one's fundamental framework on which one should conduct one's life.Thus not applicable.
Therefore, there is no need to read it with the view to acquiring such a position. If my logical position is correct then the details within the NT are neither here nor there with respect to this kind of aim and debating such details is pointless in acquiring this aim,But is your claim that the NT is "pure speculation" correct? You would seem to be out near the loony wing with statements like this.
this basis on which to carry out one's life, because the level of assuredness in assessing the truth of the NT is not sufficient for such a task and never will be - as is true for all historical documents; the older they are the more so.N/a.
Or Tacitus, the Roman historian, or Josephus, the Jewish historian. Hang on a minute, they did record his existence.1) It is obvious that Jesus existed, but there is much more to becoming a Christian than just believing he existed.If it was so bloody obvious that Jesus had existed it would all be done and dusted by now. The fact people are arguing about this like historians shows that it is far from clear cut...."We don't even know if he existed"? So you are a conspiracy theory man then.
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.
We do have Tacitus who wrote of him, probably Suetonius too. Don't forget Pliny the Younger writing of him or Josephus.
So why do you think we have no non-Christian sources for his existence? We don't know where they got their information from; it might have been Christians, but what sources would you expect which would tell us about an itinerant Jewish preacher who you were either for (and became a Christian, some of whom wrote about him) or were against him (and, if in your power, had him crucified and wanted the whole thing to cease)?Quote2) Are you sure about that?
The fact is none of those were eyewitnesses.QuoteAnd I ask again, how come only his followers saw him afterwards?3) Are you sure about that as well? James, his half-brother, does not seem to have been a follower until he met the risen Jesus.QuoteWouldn't it have served God's plan to have Jesus show himself to his antagonists?4) Why? They had already seen he had done miracles before he was crucified.QuoteIf he had done this with hundreds of them they all couldn't have closed the rumours down and having a dead man alive in front of you would be most impressive beyond belief.5) They saw him killed, they saw the empty tomb, they saw lots of witnesses. Why should they not already believe?Quote6) I was thinking of the Jewish authorities.
When you say those against him in your last line who do you mean who were contemporaries of Jesus? Not the Romans as he didn't cause that much of a fuss for them and there were others kicking up similar dust so it was just the norm of the times?
1) That's your assertion. You have no proof for this. What would help would be some indifferent observers such as the Roman authorities.
Why are you so sure? Have you read "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" by Richard Bauckham or (taking less time) listened to him discussing this over two episodes of Premier Christian Radio's "Unbelievable?" programme with the atheist NT scholar James Crossley?
2) As sure as you are about psychoanalysis!!! ;D
I thought you said you wanted a serious discussion. You are out on the loony wing with such claims.
3) That's just speculation that this event occurred. As I have said the only fact you have about the NT documents is that they were written, everything else, that is their content, is speculation on your part.
He wasn't; he appeared on at least a dozen occasions to individuals and groups, friends and skeptics. Sometimes he ate with them. Plenty of people saw him.
4) Here's your lack of understanding of human nature again. People are good at denying or selectively remembering what suits them, but as I have said before seeing a dead man walking up to you sure is guaranteed to loosen those bowels, and that's something nobody is going to forget. Also, if it is done to a group of people who were trying to suppress your activities before your resurrection the pressure of the group i.e. group denial, is much harder.
Didn't Jesus say don't hide your light under a bowl? This was his best trick yet so why be shy about it?
Both groups saw the empty tomb. At least one skeptic (James, Jesus' half-brother) was also convinced. Paul claims that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at one time. Lots of people became Christians. Why was that? Surely it was because they were convinced he was alive. Why was that?
5) Who's they? We are talking about Jesus' antagonists here, not his followers.
The trouble with wanting to have such stuff is that papyrus only survived for any length of time in very, very dry conditions, i.e. places like the caves near the Dead Sea and Oxyrhynchus. We do have Tacitus, Josephus and, probably, Suetonius referring to Christ as well as all the NT documents. That, I would suggest, is sufficient.
6) Didn't the Jewish authorities write logs and reports etc. about what was going on around them, just general stuff?
Eh?Such as?Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their reporting.
Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their interpretation.
Questions that you haven't even come close to answering.
The two that you mentioned in your post that I quoted.
... Unfortunately, they could all derive from one oral source, so we really can't say that they are independent....That would be Jesus then.
The point is that your argument that the early Christians wouldn't die for something that is not true is total bollocks.Yes and? What is your point?So what would there motivation be to be "creative"? So that some of them could lead a life of hardship and some get killed for it (2 Corinthians 11:23-27, for example)? So that they could be persecuted by their fellow Jews (Acts 8:1, for example)?
Do you really think Christians are the only people who have died for a cause? People died for the cause of removing Saddam Hussein before he could use his weapons of mass destruction. Come to think of it, people died for the cause of keeping Hussein in power.
QuoteMaybe they did produce the body. Perhaps that is why not all Jews are converted to Christianity.And the evidence for this is what?
QuoteFor us, yes. And?QuoteHow did they manage to convince Paul, their persecutor, to follow Jesus?
It's a damned sight easier to persuade an enemy to join your cause than to resurrect a dead body.
Quotewhat is your definition of independent, then? You can't just keep on saying "no, that doesn't count as independent" whenever a source is cited.They must trace back to different witnesses.
Quotewhat is your definition of independent, then? You can't just keep on saying "no, that doesn't count as independent" whenever a source is cited.They must trace back to different witnesses.
Mark, M, L and Q are different witnesses, though. Not to mention John (whoever wrote "John", that is)
Quotewhat is your definition of independent, then? You can't just keep on saying "no, that doesn't count as independent" whenever a source is cited.They must trace back to different witnesses.
Mark, M, L and Q are different witnesses, though. Not to mention John (whoever wrote "John", that is)
OK Name an event that is described by M and one of the other documents.
"...would have an idea of God as being as above."Alan (Your post 570)Nope. When discussing with people on a UK board about Christianity I would think that most people here (and in the UK population in general) would have an idea of God as being as above. Even if that were not true we are on the Christian Topic board and it fits with the Christian concept of God. You will hopefully have noticed when I write things like, "It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God". The KCA takes us to a deistic-like God, but says nothing about whether he would intervene in the universe he has created. As I say, if you can come up with a better term, please do tell us.
Except that they do. For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is.
2} But I did think of something better than God in the sense that it is more appropriate, "Something".
How is that more appropriate?
This is one issue I'd like to get sorted out so I'd like it to be done as a separate line of posts. The context is the philosophical arguments you gave on your post 92.
The word God is not a neutral term. It means different things to different people depending on their religion and even factions within religions and even to people who may not be practicing a religion may still hold some notions of the word God because of their culture. These various meanings and notions to these people form some manner of loose definitions of God for them which are not inherent in the philosophical arguments you have presented in 92. It is therefore disingenuous to use the term God in this context and effectively surreptitiously makes a link to your Christian God, from these philosophical arguments, which is not there and is unfounded.QuoteThat's cobblers. See above.
There is nothing in philosophy which can deal with the issue of God as the word is specific to religions alone, where a particular, though not always full, definition and notion of it is given depending on the religion in question. The best that philosophy can do is come up with some vague term like "Something", as God is a totally unknown quantity and lacks even the basic notional outlines.QuoteSee above. I would be rather suprised if you and others on this board do not know what I mean when I use the generic term "God". If you didn't know before this post, you do now.
You have to admit that the word God to you means something specific which is related to your Christian faith and you therefore have to admit that the word God to others of different faiths will mean something else and therefore it can't be used as a generic term as you have used it in 92. I hope you will agree and amend the material you have presented in 92.
Quotewhat is your definition of independent, then? You can't just keep on saying "no, that doesn't count as independent" whenever a source is cited.They must trace back to different witnesses.
Mark, M, L and Q are different witnesses, though. Not to mention John (whoever wrote "John", that is)
OK Name an event that is described by M and one of the other documents.
The crucifixion is, isn't it?
Oh those questions (where's my "hide my head in shame" icon?).Eh?Such as?Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their reporting.
Yes, so the question is whether they are correct in their interpretation.
Questions that you haven't even come close to answering.
The two that you mentioned in your post that I quoted.
Made them a little bit more obvious.
I'll speak about this in my response to #849.... Unfortunately, they could all derive from one oral source, so we really can't say that they are independent....That would be Jesus then.
Or it could be some bloke that Peter met in a pub who made it all up.
Alan, if you want to do the historical method, you really need to do it properly.
You are incapable of evaluating the evidence critically. I know you believe the gospels to be true and that is absolutely fine, but please stop pretending that the evidence supports your position. You really do have nothing on your side except your faith, but wasn't Jesus' message that faith should be enough for you?
Why? Why do you think they might die for something they knew to be a lie? Would you? I wouldn't.The point is that your argument that the early Christians wouldn't die for something that is not true is total bollocks.Yes and? What is your point?So what would there motivation be to be "creative"? So that some of them could lead a life of hardship and some get killed for it (2 Corinthians 11:23-27, for example)? So that they could be persecuted by their fellow Jews (Acts 8:1, for example)?
Do you really think Christians are the only people who have died for a cause? People died for the cause of removing Saddam Hussein before he could use his weapons of mass destruction. Come to think of it, people died for the cause of keeping Hussein in power.
Which documentary evidence? How would they erase it from history?QuoteQuoteMaybe they did produce the body. Perhaps that is why not all Jews are converted to Christianity.And the evidence for this is what?
There isn't any, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's vastly more likely that the Jewish authorities produced Jesus' body and the documentary evidence was later erased from history than that Jesus actually rose from the dead.
Why?QuoteQuoteFor us, yes. And?QuoteHow did they manage to convince Paul, their persecutor, to follow Jesus?
It's a damned sight easier to persuade an enemy to join your cause than to resurrect a dead body.
If you want to invoke God's superhero powers, you must stop trying to analyse the situation using the tools of science and the historical method.
an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe)."...would have an idea of God as being as above."Alan (Your post 570)Nope. When discussing with people on a UK board about Christianity I would think that most people here (and in the UK population in general) would have an idea of God as being as above. Even if that were not true we are on the Christian Topic board and it fits with the Christian concept of God. You will hopefully have noticed when I write things like, "It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God". The KCA takes us to a deistic-like God, but says nothing about whether he would intervene in the universe he has created. As I say, if you can come up with a better term, please do tell us.
Except that they do. For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is.
2} But I did think of something better than God in the sense that it is more appropriate, "Something".
How is that more appropriate?
This is one issue I'd like to get sorted out so I'd like it to be done as a separate line of posts. The context is the philosophical arguments you gave on your post 92.
The word God is not a neutral term. It means different things to different people depending on their religion and even factions within religions and even to people who may not be practicing a religion may still hold some notions of the word God because of their culture. These various meanings and notions to these people form some manner of loose definitions of God for them which are not inherent in the philosophical arguments you have presented in 92. It is therefore disingenuous to use the term God in this context and effectively surreptitiously makes a link to your Christian God, from these philosophical arguments, which is not there and is unfounded.QuoteThat's cobblers. See above.
There is nothing in philosophy which can deal with the issue of God as the word is specific to religions alone, where a particular, though not always full, definition and notion of it is given depending on the religion in question. The best that philosophy can do is come up with some vague term like "Something", as God is a totally unknown quantity and lacks even the basic notional outlines.QuoteSee above. I would be rather suprised if you and others on this board do not know what I mean when I use the generic term "God". If you didn't know before this post, you do now.
You have to admit that the word God to you means something specific which is related to your Christian faith and you therefore have to admit that the word God to others of different faiths will mean something else and therefore it can't be used as a generic term as you have used it in 92. I hope you will agree and amend the material you have presented in 92.
As above? What do you mean by that?
I just have done - twice. It is how people on a UK religion discussion board tend to think of what "God" means. Even if that were not true, please read that as what I mean when I use the term "God" in philosophical arguments.
This issue is in context of your use of the philosophical arguments. As the word God has not been defined and can not be defined in that context you should not use it there.
It brings in concepts and ideas that are not part of the philosophical arguments and is therefore wrong.That's a strange claim. Philosophical arguments have to "bring in concepts and ideas that are not part of the philosophical arguments". Can you imagine a philosophical argument without any verbes, for example?
The fact that this is the Christian board is neither here nor there the arguments stand alone and out side such a context.See above.
I've explained above what I mean by "God", so when I use that term is what I mean by it. It is consistent with the general use of the term in normal English. Have a look in a dictionary or two.
deistic-like God A totally meaningless and undefined term. No one knows what the word God means and even within your faith ideas of God differ because it is a protean metaphysical lump of putty which can be shaped to suit whoevers' will is manipulating it. And this is what you do in your philosophical arguments by saying, "It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God". Here you use the word God to mean both your Christian God and not your Christian God at the same time which just goes to show how malleable it is and so how deceptive and duplicitous it can be used to shift the goal posts without the gullible being aware of it. And with both these cases nothing is said of the specific of its meaning but is left as some kind of black hole.
I have come up with a better term: "Something"
I have done above. Alternatively, as I suggested, look in a dictionary.
If you didn't know before this post, you do now.
No I don't. You haven't definitely defined anything to do with the word God.
Regards to the first four :-Alan (your 570 cont.)Is it? Is it really? Did anyone tell Einstein this?
from 2} As you admit the primal cause could be anything even a force or 'mechanism' of some law or pattern of energy.
No, I haven't "admitted" that. If it were something physical, the start of the universe would not be the start of the universe, if you see what I mean.
Firstly, I would use the word "Something" instead of God. Also, the force or energy I'm referring to could be something non-physical, but the Kalam argument has a lot of assumptions in it which I don't agree with. One, time is a metaphysical notion of our mind created by our memoriesQuoteand there is no reason why matter etc. could not have always exited.The BGV theorem, at least according to Vilenkin, seems to show otherwise. Then there are the philosophical arguments against an infinite number of events in the past. Hilbert's Grand Hotel and the like.QuoteAre quantum fields matter/physical?Yes. And?QuoteIs energy physical or of something 'solid'?Eh?QuoteWhen I gave the list of reasons why I continue to have a Christian faith, I was not intending to have to defend all of them on one thread. I would be happy for you to pick one of them and start a new thread on it, but I don't have the time to do all of them at once.
-----------------------
3} 'Objective morality, if correct,...' - again big if. You can't use as an argument something which is far from shown to be even vaguely plausible. [Anyway this moral element could be a separate issue, something independent of the creation act itself and not at all associated with its functional framework.
How?
If the universe came about by a 'force' then forces are not moral actions. When a chemical reaction occurs it has no moral status. If a tree falls on you that action is not a moral one it is just your bad luck. It is quite reasonable to think that whatever brought about the universe it had no moral status.
---------------------
4} If some atheists do say this then they are idiots. I would amend your b) by replacing God with "Something"; and replacing God in all your philosophical arguments with "Something". The word God only truly enters the arena when one starts dealing with religion which is its domain.
Call it what you like, but it would be timeless, spaceless, non-material, immensely powerful and plausibly personal. That's a lowest common denominator idea of God in most people's use of the word.
Your last sentence has the word God in it and as I have explained in another post you can't use the word God in the context of a philosophical argument.
As I explained about morals with regards to 'forces' so it is true of the idea of being personal. The tree falling on you does not do it from a personal consideration, it is impersonal. There is no reason to assume that the 'forces' or whatever that brought about the universe had any personality or individuality or character to them/it.
As I see it time is a product of our memory. Light travelling at the speed of L in a vacuum is everywhere, hence the ideas of general relativity, and so space cesses to have meaning. Non-material I've explained above; quantum fields? And being immensely power, well that is just a relative term.
------------------
5} As I was not there to see this Jesus fellow and all these claims about him I can only leave these details on the shelves with the rest of the history books, dipping into them for my amusement.
That's rather patronising. Because you were not there to see this Jesus fellow (or Augustus Caesar or Tiberius Caesar or Napolean or Elizabeth I or Ghengis Khan am I to understand that you are uncertain about them existing and the major events of their lives?
What I'm saying is that whether they did exist or not does not govern how I live my life. It is only a possible account of history which has little to no consequence for my life; hence for my amusement. If they are not happy with my attitude then they are free to come and tell me. ;D
-------------------
6} A better explanation would be is that we just don't know how
Why is that is a better explanation?
Because it is the truth. You know?...the truth will set you free!
-------------------
6 cont.} and why these things got to be written down (or what was altered later on). We are fallible and are unable to think of every possibility that could explain an event which we never saw. Are you saying every myth and fable or whatever is true?
No. That's a silly question. In any situation we are fallible and are unable to think of every possibility etc. Why do you only bring this up when speaking about Jesus? Because it would rock your world if it were true?
I do not just bring this up when speaking about Jesus. You only think that because that is the only time we engage in any significant way. What would it rock my world?
----------------
7} What I meant was that probability is a myth created from mankind's point of view. Either something occurs or it doesn't. It is only our perspective on things that creates in our minds this probability stuff.
Really? Why do you claim this?
Because that is what happens in real life. Either something occurs or it doesn't. It is only our prior speculation, because we do not understand it fully, that we come up with these probable outcome events. When we know what will happen we do not apply our probability theories as this would be pointless.
----------------
8} But how does one evaluate a value for such things, who decides that this or that explanation warrants a given value of probability. It's sheer stupidity because no one can.
Yet you and I do this all the time in our lives? Do you know for certain that you will survive a bus trip or driving into work? You seem very inconsistent.
You need reliable information to make judgements. Information you personally know to be reliable. What some geezer wrote 2000 years ago is not reliable. This is the problem with man kind is that his hubris takes him into impossible areas like the EU project and the banking system and so on. He thinks he know but in fact he know nearly bugger all, and is then surprised when everything goes tits up!!!
So just as I take risks in my life based on past experience and on as much information that I can acquire so you are saying taking the NT as the truth is nothing more than a risk; chance taking, the throw the dice? That your faith is nothing more than a "what if", "whatever", see how the runes fall, a blind grab at chance?
---------------------
8 cont.} Your example is restrictive and conditional on an idea of function and as such will naturally result in the result you say it will give. If I say to you you can go anywhere except Paul's cathedral and then declare you will never enter Paul's cathedral it is no big shakes is it...? The whole thing is fixed i.e. a sophistic game.
Why do you think that is pertinent to what I wrote?
It's like Zeno's paradox about halving the distance to the finish line. This is a time restrictive action and so you will never get there. It is a stupid paradox because it is sheer bollocks.
Why do you think they might die for something they knew to be a lie? Would you? I wouldn't.
Which documentary evidence?
How would they erase it from history?
QuoteIf you want to invoke God's superhero powers, you must stop trying to analyse the situation using the tools of science and the historical method.Why?
Why do you think they might die for something they knew to be a lie? Would you? I wouldn't.
Who said anything about them knowing it to be lie?
Strange as it seems to you Alan, there are people who believe things to be true even though those things are actually false.
1] So why do you think that is relevant to the creation of the NT documents?1} So independent witnesses (at least 5, we count only the writers, but at least a dozen if we count the people who claimed to have seen Jesus) now becomes "duplication of the available tittle-tattle". I was hoping for a serious discussion with you.1) No, at least 5 books written 2000 years ago.How come some of them went to their deaths for standing for something they knew was a lie?And how do you know that they knew it wasn't a lie? All you have to gauge this is a book written 2000 years ago.Quote2) Oh good grief, this one has been done to death. No-one is claiming it thereby meant it was true. When will you lot stop making out as if our lot ever claim that?
If they believed it to be true that belief is no proof that what they believed was true,Quotejust that they were in emotional need for it to be seen by them as being true3) And how does it prove that? What a silly claim.Quote4) Slaps head.You have no proof that they did!!! All you have is that some people wrote that, which proves nothing. All you have is speculation!!!Because it can't be done genuinely. Once you're dead you are dead.So why did people think they saw and sometimes ate with Jesus on a dozen or so occasions in the 40 days after his death?
1) I was referring to the NT but the number of books is neither here nor there. It all means is the duplication of the available tittle-tattle.Quote2}Know 100%? Correct. Know enough to base my life upon it? Yes, I do know that well enough.
2) You only have yourself to blame for this. You can't claim they knew that the events were fact when quite clearly you don't know that.QuoteThat's my whole argument here about what you actually know to be true about what happened 2000 years ago. Oh yeah, that's right, you weren't there to see it!!!!3} What a weird criterion. So we should only believe things we have seen ourselves? Are you serious?Quote4} What was my need then?
3) People join religions because they have a need.QuoteQuite obviously they were waiting for the messiah and all that and this new cult of following Jesus fitted the bill.5} Oh, well put. It was what was predicted beforehand. Thanks for that endorsement.QuoteIt's just human nature to what to be loved and all that and to feel secure and safe.6} <snigger/>Quote7} If you want to know its content, may I suggest you read it. That's what other people do.
4) Slaps head. What ever floats your boat.
The only fact you have here is that the NT was written by men. Its content is just speculation.
1} I could have used the word gossip or rumours but you know how it works, ideas get multiplied by constant exchange. We see this type of thing all the time, it part of our human nature.Quote2} And what do you really know about it? All you have are manuscripts written 2000 years ago and you don't even know why or how they came about, just guesswork. And on this you fashion the whole of your life - on pure speculation and guesswork.2] That's incorrect. Have a bit of a read. If you are serious about this I would suggest "An Introduction to the New Testament" by Carson and Moo.Quote3] I have investigated it for nearly 40 years now.
3} I didn't say believe. I would never use that term in this context. You can't say that something is a fact just because some stranger has told you it is so, and you haven't investigated it personally to see if it is true.Quote4] Why do you think that is relevant to my understanding of what happened?
This is my whole point of my argument! You can't fashion the fundamental aspect of your life on some "What ifs.".Quote5] Are you aware of all your psychological needs? Which need was it which overruled my scientific mind when I first looked at this stuff in depth when I was an undergraduate at Cambridge?
4} Your need? As in all these cases it is a psychological one and one which you may not be fully aware of. Again, some understanding of human nature and some self introspection of one's nature and person is needed here to fully see what is going on.QuotePass. I can't see what I was responding to.
5} Don't understand this comment. It sounds like some kind of sour grapes response?
I was hoping for a serious discussion with you.QuotePass. I can't see what this was referring to.
6} Yes, well, I think you've found your level there. Is this the response you give your fellow church goers when they get all touchy-feely as you put it? Very loving indeed!!!
I was hoping for a serious discussion with you.QuoteSo you allege.
7} That is the whole point of my argument. Because the evidence is so weakQuoteand relies on pure speculationSo you allege.Quoteno firm conclusion can be acquired to justify taking it as a basis for one to live one's life by, to fashion one's fundamental framework on which one should conduct one's life.Thus not applicable.QuoteTherefore, there is no need to read it with the view to acquiring such a position. If my logical position is correct then the details within the NT are neither here nor there with respect to this kind of aim and debating such details is pointless in acquiring this aim,6] But is your claim that the NT is "pure speculation" correct? You would seem to be out near the loony wing with statements like this.Quotethis basis on which to carry out one's life, because the level of assuredness in assessing the truth of the NT is not sufficient for such a task and never will be - as is true for all historical documents; the older they are the more so.N/a.
Why do you think they might die for something they knew to be a lie? Would you? I wouldn't.
Who said anything about them knowing it to be lie?
Strange as it seems to you Alan, there are people who believe things to be true even though those things are actually false.
Oh no ... please, please, please tell me that Alan isn't still wheeling this crap out even though he's had it responded to I don't know how many times by I don't know how many people >:( Is he incapable of reading or something, or can he just not process information?
1} Or Tacitus, the Roman historian, or Josephus, the Jewish historian. Hang on a minute, they did record his existence.1) It is obvious that Jesus existed, but there is much more to becoming a Christian than just believing he existed.If it was so bloody obvious that Jesus had existed it would all be done and dusted by now. The fact people are arguing about this like historians shows that it is far from clear cut...."We don't even know if he existed"? So you are a conspiracy theory man then.
I'm saying we don't even know if he existed. There are no non Christian sources for his existence. Very strange considering that this was God's most important message to mankind. You would have thought it would have had a mega impact as God declared it with all his power.
We do have Tacitus who wrote of him, probably Suetonius too. Don't forget Pliny the Younger writing of him or Josephus.
So why do you think we have no non-Christian sources for his existence? We don't know where they got their information from; it might have been Christians, but what sources would you expect which would tell us about an itinerant Jewish preacher who you were either for (and became a Christian, some of whom wrote about him) or were against him (and, if in your power, had him crucified and wanted the whole thing to cease)?Quote2) Are you sure about that?
The fact is none of those were eyewitnesses.QuoteAnd I ask again, how come only his followers saw him afterwards?3) Are you sure about that as well? James, his half-brother, does not seem to have been a follower until he met the risen Jesus.QuoteWouldn't it have served God's plan to have Jesus show himself to his antagonists?4) Why? They had already seen he had done miracles before he was crucified.QuoteIf he had done this with hundreds of them they all couldn't have closed the rumours down and having a dead man alive in front of you would be most impressive beyond belief.5) They saw him killed, they saw the empty tomb, they saw lots of witnesses. Why should they not already believe?Quote6) I was thinking of the Jewish authorities.
When you say those against him in your last line who do you mean who were contemporaries of Jesus? Not the Romans as he didn't cause that much of a fuss for them and there were others kicking up similar dust so it was just the norm of the times?
1) That's your assertion. You have no proof for this. What would help would be some indifferent observers such as the Roman authorities.Quote2} Why are you so sure? Have you read "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" by Richard Bauckham or (taking less time) listened to him discussing this over two episodes of Premier Christian Radio's "Unbelievable?" programme with the atheist NT scholar James Crossley?
2) As sure as you are about psychoanalysis!!! ;D
Why specifically do you think the gospels do not contain eyewitness accounts?Quote3} I thought you said you wanted a serious discussion. You are out on the loony wing with such claims.
3) That's just speculation that this event occurred. As I have said the only fact you have about the NT documents is that they were written, everything else, that is their content, is speculation on your part.Quote4} He wasn't; he appeared on at least a dozen occasions to individuals and groups, friends and skeptics. Sometimes he ate with them. Plenty of people saw him.
4) Here's your lack of understanding of human nature again. People are good at denying or selectively remembering what suits them, but as I have said before seeing a dead man walking up to you sure is guaranteed to loosen those bowels, and that's something nobody is going to forget. Also, if it is done to a group of people who were trying to suppress your activities before your resurrection the pressure of the group i.e. group denial, is much harder.
Didn't Jesus say don't hide your light under a bowl? This was his best trick yet so why be shy about it?Quote5} Both groups saw the empty tomb. At least one skeptic (James, Jesus' half-brother) was also convinced. Paul claims that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at one time. Lots of people became Christians. Why was that? Surely it was because they were convinced he was alive. Why was that?
5) Who's they? We are talking about Jesus' antagonists here, not his followers.Quote6} The trouble with wanting to have such stuff is that papyrus only survived for any length of time in very, very dry conditions, i.e. places like the caves near the Dead Sea and Oxyrhynchus. We do have Tacitus, Josephus and, probably, Suetonius referring to Christ as well as all the NT documents. That, I would suggest, is sufficient.
6) Didn't the Jewish authorities write logs and reports etc. about what was going on around them, just general stuff?
Why do you think they might die for something they knew to be a lie? Would you? I wouldn't.
Who said anything about them knowing it to be lie?
Strange as it seems to you Alan, there are people who believe things to be true even though those things are actually false.
Oh no ... please, please, please tell me that Alan isn't still wheeling this crap out even though he's had it responded to I don't know how many times by I don't know how many people >:( Is he incapable of reading or something, or can he just not process information?
1) an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe)."...would have an idea of God as being as above."Alan (Your post 570)Nope. When discussing with people on a UK board about Christianity I would think that most people here (and in the UK population in general) would have an idea of God as being as above. Even if that were not true we are on the Christian Topic board and it fits with the Christian concept of God. You will hopefully have noticed when I write things like, "It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God". The KCA takes us to a deistic-like God, but says nothing about whether he would intervene in the universe he has created. As I say, if you can come up with a better term, please do tell us.
Except that they do. For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter), immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is.
2} But I did think of something better than God in the sense that it is more appropriate, "Something".
How is that more appropriate?
This is one issue I'd like to get sorted out so I'd like it to be done as a separate line of posts. The context is the philosophical arguments you gave on your post 92.
The word God is not a neutral term. It means different things to different people depending on their religion and even factions within religions and even to people who may not be practicing a religion may still hold some notions of the word God because of their culture. These various meanings and notions to these people form some manner of loose definitions of God for them which are not inherent in the philosophical arguments you have presented in 92. It is therefore disingenuous to use the term God in this context and effectively surreptitiously makes a link to your Christian God, from these philosophical arguments, which is not there and is unfounded.QuoteThat's cobblers. See above.
There is nothing in philosophy which can deal with the issue of God as the word is specific to religions alone, where a particular, though not always full, definition and notion of it is given depending on the religion in question. The best that philosophy can do is come up with some vague term like "Something", as God is a totally unknown quantity and lacks even the basic notional outlines.QuoteSee above. I would be rather suprised if you and others on this board do not know what I mean when I use the generic term "God". If you didn't know before this post, you do now.
You have to admit that the word God to you means something specific which is related to your Christian faith and you therefore have to admit that the word God to others of different faiths will mean something else and therefore it can't be used as a generic term as you have used it in 92. I hope you will agree and amend the material you have presented in 92.
As above? What do you mean by that?Quote2) I just have done - twice. It is how people on a UK religion discussion board tend to think of what "God" means. Even if that were not true, please read that as what I mean when I use the term "God" in philosophical arguments.
This issue is in context of your use of the philosophical arguments. As the word God has not been defined and can not be defined in that context you should not use it there.
There, that's that sorted.QuoteIt brings in concepts and ideas that are not part of the philosophical arguments and is therefore wrong.3) That's a strange claim. Philosophical arguments have to "bring in concepts and ideas that are not part of the philosophical arguments". Can you imagine a philosophical argument without any verbes, for example?QuoteThe fact that this is the Christian board is neither here nor there the arguments stand alone and out side such a context.4) See above.Quote5) I've explained above what I mean by "God", so when I use that term is what I mean by it. It is consistent with the general use of the term in normal English. Have a look in a dictionary or two.
deistic-like God A totally meaningless and undefined term. No one knows what the word God means and even within your faith ideas of God differ because it is a protean metaphysical lump of putty which can be shaped to suit whoevers' will is manipulating it. And this is what you do in your philosophical arguments by saying, "It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God". Here you use the word God to mean both your Christian God and not your Christian God at the same time which just goes to show how malleable it is and so how deceptive and duplicitous it can be used to shift the goal posts without the gullible being aware of it. And with both these cases nothing is said of the specific of its meaning but is left as some kind of black hole.
I have come up with a better term: "Something"QuoteI have done above. Alternatively, as I suggested, look in a dictionary.
If you didn't know before this post, you do now.
No I don't. You haven't definitely defined anything to do with the word God.
Where did you get that Tacitus was born in 200AD?Wiki!!!
?Where did you get that Tacitus was born in 200AD?Wiki!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Claudius_Tacitus?Where did you get that Tacitus was born in 200AD?Wiki!!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus
That is not the historianhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Claudius_Tacitus?Where did you get that Tacitus was born in 200AD?Wiki!!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus
If you put Tacitus into the search you get a Wiki link with four sub-links below it. One is 'Tacitus on Jesus' and another is the one I gave above. I would assume they all refer to the same guy?That is not the historianhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Claudius_Tacitus?Where did you get that Tacitus was born in 200AD?Wiki!!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus
You would assume wrong.My assumption was logical, they were at fault in the way they had presented it.
You would assume wrong.My assumption was logical, they were at fault in the way they had presented it.
I wasn't referring to the Wiki pages per se I was referring to the list of links you get when you click on search. There are 4 sub-links under the main link for the Wiki Tacitus link.You would assume wrong.My assumption was logical, they were at fault in the way they had presented it.
Your assumption was a barrel of pish. There is a disambiguation on Wiki and one of them refers to Tacitus the historian, which was what was covered here, further the Tacitus on Jesus link takes you to that one.
none of which would take you to Tacitus the Emperor from Tacitus on Christ. if you put Jones on Pish Assumptions into a search engine would you assume all of the Jones' that appeared were the same?I wasn't referring to the Wiki pages per se I was referring to the list of links you get when you click on search. There are 4 sub-links under the main link for the Wiki Tacitus link.You would assume wrong.My assumption was logical, they were at fault in the way they had presented it.
Your assumption was a barrel of pish. There is a disambiguation on Wiki and one of them refers to Tacitus the historian, which was what was covered here, further the Tacitus on Jesus link takes you to that one.
The main link was for Tacitus as a general page on him. One of the sub-links was called Tacitus on Christ and another sub-link was for the other Tacitus. For someone not knowing that there were two Tacitus' one would assume everything referred to one bloke.none of which would take you to Tacitus the Emperor from Tacitus on Christ. if you put Jones on Pish Assumptions into a search engine would you assume all of the Jones' that appeared were the same?I wasn't referring to the Wiki pages per se I was referring to the list of links you get when you click on search. There are 4 sub-links under the main link for the Wiki Tacitus link.You would assume wrong.My assumption was logical, they were at fault in the way they had presented it.
Your assumption was a barrel of pish. There is a disambiguation on Wiki and one of them refers to Tacitus the historian, which was what was covered here, further the Tacitus on Jesus link takes you to that one.
and when you got to the link when you were looking, as was made clear on the thread, for Tacitus the historian, and about Tacitus on Christ and you read about a non historian emperor where there was no reference to JC, didn't a tiny inkling of your brain go 'hmmm, Shirley something wrong?' (Don't call me, Shirley)The main link was for Tacitus as a general page on him. One of the sub-links was called Tacitus on Christ and another sub-link was for the other Tacitus. For someone not knowing that there were two Tacitus' one would assume everything referred to one bloke.none of which would take you to Tacitus the Emperor from Tacitus on Christ. if you put Jones on Pish Assumptions into a search engine would you assume all of the Jones' that appeared were the same?I wasn't referring to the Wiki pages per se I was referring to the list of links you get when you click on search. There are 4 sub-links under the main link for the Wiki Tacitus link.You would assume wrong.My assumption was logical, they were at fault in the way they had presented it.
Your assumption was a barrel of pish. There is a disambiguation on Wiki and one of them refers to Tacitus the historian, which was what was covered here, further the Tacitus on Jesus link takes you to that one.
You really are scraping the barrel to score some points on me, NS!and when you got to the link when you were looking, as was made clear on the thread, for Tacitus the historian, and about Tacitus on Christ and you read about a non historian emperor where there was no reference to JC, didn't a tiny inkling of your brain go 'hmmm, Shirley something wrong?' (Don't call me, Shirley)The main link was for Tacitus as a general page on him. One of the sub-links was called Tacitus on Christ and another sub-link was for the other Tacitus. For someone not knowing that there were two Tacitus' one would assume everything referred to one bloke.none of which would take you to Tacitus the Emperor from Tacitus on Christ. if you put Jones on Pish Assumptions into a search engine would you assume all of the Jones' that appeared were the same?I wasn't referring to the Wiki pages per se I was referring to the list of links you get when you click on search. There are 4 sub-links under the main link for the Wiki Tacitus link.You would assume wrong.My assumption was logical, they were at fault in the way they had presented it.
Your assumption was a barrel of pish. There is a disambiguation on Wiki and one of them refers to Tacitus the historian, which was what was covered here, further the Tacitus on Jesus link takes you to that one.