Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: NicholasMarks on November 20, 2015, 09:57:31 AM
-
Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Matthew 24:29 Isaiah 13:10 Revelation 6:13.
To the franchise holder of God’s ‘Grand Unification of All the Universal Forces’ this line from the Holy Bible can only mean one thing…The planet Earth is going to break out of its gravitational moorings. Due to all the abuses inflicted upon it the planet will suddenly, and without warning, centrifugally lurch beyond its normal orbit and pass to a new orbital position leaving the moon and the sun behind, and giving the impression that the stars are falling to the Earth.
The clues are all around us…global warming…the global, atmospheric, trumpet sounds, that have no apparent cause…the earthquakes and sink-holes that spring out of nowhere…all given adequate account of on YouTube and are telling us of the stresses and strains the world is having to resist.
The trauma is well recorded in the surrounding Biblical verses giving us the indication that those who are well prepared for it in a righteous and enduring way will be able to cope best and will survive especially with the mechanics of resurrection in their favour.
-
To the franchise holder of God’s ‘Grand Unification of All the Universal Forces’ this line from the Holy Bible can only mean one thing…The planet Earth is going to break out of its gravitational moorings. Due to all the abuses inflicted upon it the planet will suddenly, and without warning, centrifugally lurch beyond its normal orbit and pass to a new orbital position leaving the moon and the sun behind, and giving the impression that the stars are falling to the Earth.
How will the centrifugal force 'suddenly' force the earth from it's position?
Do you know what centrifugal force actually is?
Is the Earth still going to remain as part of the solar system when it reaches it's new position?
-
Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Matthew 24:29 Isaiah 13:10 Revelation 6:13.
To the franchise holder of God’s ‘Grand Unification of All the Universal Forces’ this line from the Holy Bible can only mean one thing…The planet Earth is going to break out of its gravitational moorings. Due to all the abuses inflicted upon it the planet will suddenly, and without warning, centrifugally lurch beyond its normal orbit and pass to a new orbital position leaving the moon and the sun behind, and giving the impression that the stars are falling to the Earth.
The clues are all around us…global warming…the global, atmospheric, trumpet sounds, that have no apparent cause…the earthquakes and sink-holes that spring out of nowhere…all given adequate account of on YouTube and are telling us of the stresses and strains the world is having to resist.
The trauma is well recorded in the surrounding Biblical verses giving us the indication that those who are well prepared for it in a righteous and enduring way will be able to cope best and will survive especially with the mechanics of resurrection in their favour.
Oh dear, LA, LA LAND NM! ::) I don't remember sink holes being recorded in the Bible! Sink holes are often caused by disused underground mines. Global warming has a known cause, earthquakes are due to seismic activity! 'Trumpet sounds? If you are hearing trumpet sounds in your head, get medical help!
-
How will the centrifugal force 'suddenly' force the earth from it's position?
Do you know what centrifugal force actually is?
Is the Earth still going to remain as part of the solar system when it reaches it's new position?
Orbital motion comprises of three separate forces each playing their part.
Pendulum motion explains it best whereby gravity gives way to centrifugal force which continues until a weightless force allows gravity to return. This is why our orbital path is elliptical. So the nasty disturbances we are creating on this planet will certainly put this planet under a great load...and WW3 will probably be the last straw.
The Holy Bible does indicate that the planet will remain part of the solar system but much further away from the sun and life will be very different.
It seems that the planet is now struggling to maintain the status quo hence all the unexpected and unusual global disturbances which, it seems, has aroused the interest of scientists from other worlds.
-
Orbital motion comprises of three separate forces each playing their part.
Pendulum motion explains it best whereby gravity gives way to centrifugal force which continues until a weightless force allows gravity to return. This is why our orbital path is elliptical. So the nasty disturbances we are creating on this planet will certainly put this planet under a great load...and WW3 will probably be the last straw.
The Holy Bible does indicate that the planet will remain part of the solar system but much further away from the sun and life will be very different.
It seems that the planet is now struggling to maintain the status quo hence all the unexpected and unusual global disturbances which, it seems, has aroused the interest of scientists from other worlds.
Chapter and verse?
-
Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
I'll presume that the idea of the moon giving off light is poetic. Whilst the moon does emit radiation of its own, that radiation tends to be in the infra-red range, and certainly isn't in the visible spectrum: the visible spectrum radiation that appears to come from the moon is almost entirely reflected sunlight.
To the franchise holder of God’s ‘Grand Unification of All the Universal Forces’ this line from the Holy Bible can only mean one thing…The planet Earth is going to break out of its gravitational moorings.
Whilst there is a slim chance that might happen due to impact from another celestial body, the impact required to shift Earth out of it's orbit is such that there wouldn't be anyone left alive to notice the lights going out.
Due to all the abuses inflicted upon it the planet will suddenly, and without warning, centrifugally lurch beyond its normal orbit and pass to a new orbital position leaving the moon and the sun behind, and giving the impression that the stars are falling to the Earth.
That's absolute nonsense. Humanity lacks the capacity to harness enough energy in any one place to seriously affect the orbit of the Earth. If the Earth were dislodged from its orbit by such a gradual means there's no reason to think the moon would not shift with it.
The clues are all around us…global warming…the global, atmospheric, trumpet sounds, that have no apparent cause…the earthquakes and sink-holes that spring out of nowhere…all given adequate account of on YouTube and are telling us of the stresses and strains the world is having to resist.
Global warming is a pressing social issue, but of the likely impacts it has a sudden gravitational lurch that throw the Earth out of its orbit isn't one of them. This sort of deluded stupidity is part of what's undermining coherent, consistent action on the causes of climate change.
I have no idea what the 'global, atmospheric trumpet sounds that have no apparent cause' you are referring to might be. I've no idea, in fact, if they actually exist at all, I've never heard of them - could you perhaps give a link or a reference?
Fairly rigorous investigation shows that there is no apparent change in the overall frequency or intensity of earthquakes over the last few centuries. As mankind has spread there have been more human effects, and as global communications have improved there has been more popular awareness of their existence, but that doesn't change the actual incidences.
Sink-holes do not 'spring out of nowhere', their causes are pretty well understood. That we aren't particularly good at identifying the warning signs - when there are warning signs that we could see - does not mean that they are some sort of mystic occurrence.
Finally, whilst YouTube is an interesting and thought-provoking community, it's not renowned for its peer-review process or editorial ethics - I'd suggest if you hear claims on there you find a reputable source to verify the claims before you go and regurgitate them in public.
The trauma is well recorded in the surrounding Biblical verses giving us the indication that those who are well prepared for it in a righteous and enduring way will be able to cope best and will survive especially with the mechanics of resurrection in their favour.
There are traumas that are well-recorded in any number of works of heroic fiction, from the Belgariad through Harry Potter to the Lord of the Rings, and all of them could be poetically or allegorically read to reflect reality - that doesn't make Kal-Torak, Voldemort or Sauron or their alleged threats a reality.
O.
-
Orbital motion comprises of three separate forces each playing their part.
A pure orbital motion actually involves no forces at all - if it did, work would be being done by the orbit, and that system would have run out of energy and collapsed an awfully long time ago.
Orbits are purely - entirely, singularly - down to the effects of gravity, which is not actually a force (though it's often convenient to think of it as one)
Pendulum motion explains it best whereby gravity gives way to centrifugal force which continues until a weightless force allows gravity to return.
A pendulum oscillates between gravitational potential energy and kinetic energy. A centripetal force acts to constrain the movement and cause the accelerations that result in the changes of energy.
This is why our orbital path is elliptical.
No, it isn't.
So the nasty disturbances we are creating on this planet will certainly put this planet under a great load...and WW3 will probably be the last straw.
Even if WW3 were to occur, we lack the technical capacity to generate the forces required to significantly disturb the Earth's orbital movements.
The Holy Bible does indicate that the planet will remain part of the solar system but much further away from the sun and life will be very different.
It also indicates that grasshoppers have four legs... Just saying.
It seems that the planet is now struggling to maintain the status quo hence all the unexpected and unusual global disturbances which, it seems, has aroused the interest of scientists from other worlds.
It seems as though human effects are disrupting some of the balances of the Earth's biosphere, certainly. There is no mechanism that we're aware of that would convert that to a disruption of the celestial mechanics that control the Earth's orbit.
O.
-
Outrider/Floo
My trust is in the Holy Bible which tells us the last stroke that evil will inflict upon this planet, describing it in the Biblical passages listed in the opening post. Even before it, nations will rise against nations and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in diverse places…You cannot blame me from trying to save you all.
You talk as if you know what gravity is Outrider, but I’m afraid you don’t and cannot possibly know unless you are conversant with ‘The Grand Unification of the Key Universal Forces’…and if you understood these you would certainly be a lot less derisory about the Holy Bible and Jesus’ righteous teaching…still…we can’t all be saved.
-
Orbital motion comprises of three separate forces each playing their part.
Pendulum motion explains it best whereby gravity gives way to centrifugal force which continues until a weightless force allows gravity to return. This is why our orbital path is elliptical. So the nasty disturbances we are creating on this planet will certainly put this planet under a great load...and WW3 will probably be the last straw.
The Holy Bible does indicate that the planet will remain part of the solar system but much further away from the sun and life will be very different.
It seems that the planet is now struggling to maintain the status quo hence all the unexpected and unusual global disturbances which, it seems, has aroused the interest of scientists from other worlds.
Ah Sparkster, I see that you have a new toy to play with ie WW3 ::)
Funny that you didn't mention it in your last foray here!
What has happened between then and now for you to bring it into your 'predictions'?
So, when is it due?.......
Don't tell me, it is 'just around the corner', 'soon', 'imminent'? :-\ ::) ::) ::)
-
Ah Sparkster, I see that you have a new toy to play with ie WW3 ::)
Funny that you didn't mention it in your last foray here!
What has happened between then and now for you to bring it into your 'predictions'?
So, when is it due?.......
Don't tell me, it is 'just around the corner', 'soon', 'imminent'? :-\ ::) ::) ::)
If you had been reading your Holy Bible Sebastian you would be aware of it too...but must now rely on others who are reading it for you so that you can be prepared in the same way I will be prepared...by taking in the accurate word of Jesus Christ.
But really you don't need anyone else but your own logic to tell you that if you screw a planet for all it is worth it will eventually crumble under wars, poisonous waste and a whole host of unhappy people relying on the devious to guide them.
-
If you had been reading your Holy Bible Sebastian you would be aware of it too...but must now rely on others who are reading it for you so that you can be prepared in the same way I will be prepared...by taking in the accurate word of Jesus Christ.
But really you don't need anyone else but your own logic to tell you that if you screw a planet for all it is worth it will eventually crumble under wars, poisonous waste and a whole host of unhappy people relying on the devious to guide them.
Funny though that you only start mentioning it now though?
If you had been reading your Holy Bible before now, why not mention it then, why wait?
-
NM takes a literalist approach to the Bible, then sets his overactive imagination to work! He isn't exactly convincing! ::)
-
Floo, Sebastian:
The Holy Bible reveals its messages slowly and in a manner that is understandable by the recipient. All very necessary because the messages are very deep, and complex, we might almost say profound.
But what you should be saying to yourselves is how can I protect myself and bring myself into the flock of faithful who will be saved??
Well don't expect any favours...you must expect to pay for every sin that has your name on it...and this is the sure-fire way of reinforcing your genetic strength...but that's another story.
-
NM,
My trust is in the Holy Bible which tells us...
No doubt it is, just as lots of people put their trust in lots of other "holy" texts entirely.
As we know that you get all the science horrendously wrong though, can you suggest any reason at all why your personal trust in something should be persuasive for anyone else?
-
Floo, Sebastian:
The Holy Bible reveals its messages slowly and in a manner that is understandable by the recipient. All very necessary because the messages are very deep, and complex, we might almost say profound.
But what you should be saying to yourselves is how can I protect myself and bring myself into the flock of faithful who will be saved??
Well don't expect any favours...you must expect to pay for every sin that has your name on it...and this is the sure-fire way of reinforcing your genetic strength...but that's another story.
Blimey NM, I thought your posts were pretty surreal before your prolonged absence from the forum, but you have now excelled yourself in the realms of fanciful speculation!
-
Nick,
J B Jordan summarizes what this verse means in his book Through New Eyes, in which he deals with symbolism in the Bible.
The context is that it is "after the distress of those days" (Mt. 24:29). Jordan takes this to mean the destruction of Jerusalem.
The words you have quoted refer to what happens after that event. In the Old Testament the sun, moon and stars are used to symbolize Israel, Babylon, Egypt, and the nations in general. In the New Testament they symbolize Israel and the nations in general (the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32 has more specific reference to Israel, and is a reference to Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem). After the destruction of Jerusalem, the nations and empires of the world, symbolized in Mt 24:29 by the heavenly lights, will be removed and replaced by the light of the sun of righteousness (Malachi 4:2) in the kingdom of God.
-
Nick,
J B Jordan summarizes what this verse means in his book Through New Eyes, in which he deals with symbolism in the Bible.
The context is that it is "after the distress of those days" (Mt. 24:29). Jordan takes this to mean the destruction of Jerusalem.
The words you have quoted refer to what happens after that event. In the Old Testament the sun, moon and stars are used to symbolize Israel, Babylon, Egypt, and the nations in general. In the New Testament they symbolize Israel and the nations in general (the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32 has more specific reference to Israel, and is a reference to Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem). After the destruction of Jerusalem, the nations and empires of the world, symbolized in Mt 24:29 by the heavenly lights, will be removed and replaced by the light of the sun of righteousness (Malachi 4:2) in the kingdom of God.
Yeh right! ::)
-
Nick,
J B Jordan summarizes what this verse means in his book Through New Eyes, in which he deals with symbolism in the Bible.
The context is that it is "after the distress of those days" (Mt. 24:29). Jordan takes this to mean the destruction of Jerusalem.
The words you have quoted refer to what happens after that event. In the Old Testament the sun, moon and stars are used to symbolize Israel, Babylon, Egypt, and the nations in general. In the New Testament they symbolize Israel and the nations in general (the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32 has more specific reference to Israel, and is a reference to Pentecost and the destruction of Jerusalem). After the destruction of Jerusalem, the nations and empires of the world, symbolized in Mt 24:29 by the heavenly lights, will be removed and replaced by the light of the sun of righteousness (Malachi 4:2) in the kingdom of God.
That's all well and good, but where's WW3 in all of this?
-
My trust is in the Holy Bible which tells us the last stroke that evil will inflict upon this planet, describing it in the Biblical passages listed in the opening post.
My trust is in the increasingly, demonstrably successful practice of human science which suggest that this specific claim, whilst perhaps based on your understanding of Bible is - to quote another influential book - 'isn't worth a pile of foetid dingo's kidneys'
Even before it, nations will rise against nations and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in diverse places…You cannot blame me from trying to save you all.
And I hope that it never seems I'm criticising your intentions - I appreciate that you genuinely seem to think that you're reaching out to help people. It's just that you appear to have a very inconsistent grasp of reality.
You talk as if you know what gravity is Outrider, but I’m afraid you don’t and cannot possibly know unless you are conversant with ‘The Grand Unification of the Key Universal Forces’…and if you understood these you would certainly be a lot less derisory about the Holy Bible and Jesus’ righteous teaching…still…we can’t all be saved.
Know what gravity is... I don't, by any stretch, know everything about it, probably a lot less than some people. Tellingly, though, more than you. I know that it's not - in scientific terms - a force. I know that we can't generate enough force to overcome it's hold on the planet within it's orbit.
As to your 'Grand Unification of the Key Universal Forces' idea, I asked you for some details about that, and instead of providing any you just started back on your 'Holy Bible'. It might 'tie up' with your conception of this scientific hypothesis, but it doesn't demonstrate or prove it - if you want people to accept that this is science, you'll need to do the scientific work. You can't just claim authority, that's not how science works. If you believe Jesus is a scientist and God is a scientist, then emulate them - learn some science.
O.
-
Floo, Sebastian:
The Holy Bible reveals its messages slowly and in a manner that is understandable by the recipient. All very necessary because the messages are very deep, and complex, we might almost say profound.
So, when did your very slow reading of the bible reveal WW3 to you?
-
Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Matthew 24:29 Isaiah 13:10 Revelation 6:13.
To the franchise holder of God’s ‘Grand Unification of All the Universal Forces’ this line from the Holy Bible can only mean one thing…The planet Earth is going to break out of its gravitational moorings. Due to all the abuses inflicted upon it the planet will suddenly, and without warning, centrifugally lurch beyond its normal orbit and pass to a new orbital position leaving the moon and the sun behind, and giving the impression that the stars are falling to the Earth.
The clues are all around us…global warming…the global, atmospheric, trumpet sounds, that have no apparent cause…the earthquakes and sink-holes that spring out of nowhere…all given adequate account of on YouTube and are telling us of the stresses and strains the world is having to resist.
The trauma is well recorded in the surrounding Biblical verses giving us the indication that those who are well prepared for it in a righteous and enduring way will be able to cope best and will survive especially with the mechanics of resurrection in their favour.
That's not God, Nicholas, that was Davros 🌹 ;)
Moving planets about to use as a cosmic machine :)
"The stolen earth". bwaahaha ha........
-
My trust is in the increasingly, demonstrably successful practice of human science which suggest that this specific claim, whilst perhaps based on your understanding of Bible is - to quote another influential book - 'isn't worth a pile of foetid dingo's kidneys'
Quoting scripture again Rider.....after three.....Oh when the saints,come marching in Ha Ha Ha.
-
Quoting scripture again Rider.....after three.....Oh when the saints,come marching in Ha Ha Ha.
Too late again, it had worn off! :'(
-
Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Matthew 24:29 Isaiah 13:10 Revelation 6:13.
To the franchise holder of God’s ‘Grand Unification of All the Universal Forces’ this line from the Holy Bible can only mean one thing…The planet Earth is going to break out of its gravitational moorings.
OK, NM. Revelation 6:13 is part of an apocalyptic, revelatory passage that is written in pictorial language and isn't, therefore, stating what will literally occur.
Isaiah 13 is a prophetic passage that again uses pictorial language and - as it says in the very first verse, refers to Babylon - suggesting that the 'earth' referred to is something different to the sphere on which we find ourselves. After all, the words country (v5), land (v9), earth (v13) and world (v11) are all translations of the same Hebrew word ארץ (eretz).
Matthew 24:29 opens a passage that refers to the second coming of Christ. Again, as with a lot of the chapter, it uses metaphorical and pictorial language. Theoretically, your picture of the breaking out of its gravitational moorings could happen, but it is only one of a number of possible options. In view of Jesus' lack of detail in regard to his second coming, is it likely that he would explain this particular stage of that second coming in such clear detail?
By the way, I have to say I enjoy your posts as it means that I have to exercise my critical faculties in very different ways to how I respond to some others here.
-
NM takes a literalist approach to the Bible, then sets his overactive imagination to work! He isn't exactly convincing! ::)
Its not even a literalist approach, Floo. If it was, he would at least be taking the context into account to some degree - which his OP markedly fails to do.
-
Its not even a literalist approach, Floo. If it was, he would at least be taking the context into account to some degree - which his OP markedly fails to do.
All of this was predicted in an early edition of Star Trek, so I wouldn't think it's a good idea to not take NM seriously; can't remember whether it was Jim or Spock that spoke about it? Or was it Scottie? I think Mr Sulu was on leave?
ippy
-
ippy, Hope, Sebastian Toe, On stage before it wore off, Rose, Outrider, Floo, Spud, bluehillside:
Gravity works the way I describe because it is the result of two distinct and separate dimensions that mass distorts. You can't distort empty space so we must look for the property that is being distorted. It is certainly invisible, it is without doubt superabundant and other than the need to implode it is hardly detectable...Put all this together and we get a force that is able to be manipulated and the first man to walk on water claims the prize for being the most advanced among us...and that was/is Jesus Christ.
-
Gravity works the way I describe because it is the result of two distinct and separate dimensions that mass distorts.
Better. Which 'dimensions' - gravity, according to the current understanding, distorts four dimension as a result of the interactions of fundamental particles with the background Higgs field, why would you think only two of these dimensions were involved? Which two - the simple fact that the Earth is a three-dimensional object and no-one falls off of the side that isn't covered by your interaction suggests a short-fall in your theory.
You can't distort empty space so we must look for the property that is being distorted.
Actually, it's been adequately demonstrated that gravity distorts empty space - that's why satellites don't fly away, it's why the planets orbit the sun, it's why the sun orbits the galactic core...
It is certainly invisible, it is without doubt superabundant and other than the need to implode it is hardly detectable...Put all this together and we get a force that is able to be manipulated and the first man to walk on water claims the prize for being the most advanced among us...and that was/is Jesus Christ.
Given that your predicates are all somewhere in the range between 'wrong' and 'not even wrong', I'm afraid I have to reject your conclusion. You're welcome to distribute to others in the scientific community - that's the point of peer review - but I suspect you'd get a similar response if you got one at all.
O.
-
ippy, Hope, Sebastian Toe, On stage before it wore off, Rose, Outrider, Floo, Spud, bluehillside:
Gravity works the way I describe because it is the result of two distinct and separate dimensions that mass distorts. You can't distort empty space so we must look for the property that is being distorted. It is certainly invisible, it is without doubt superabundant and other than the need to implode it is hardly detectable...Put all this together and we get a force that is able to be manipulated and the first man to walk on water claims the prize for being the most advanced among us...and that was/is Jesus Christ.
Cloud cuckoo land and then some! ::) Blimey NM your imagination is so remarkable you could find yourself being featured in the Guinness book of records! ;D
-
Floo, Outrider:
The two dimensions I refer to are indisputable. One existed before the big-bang and is the background dimension that housed all the 'dark matter' (the static universe) that still exists today in the form of mass, energy and the second dimension which is the high-speed universe, triggered by the big-bang and which overlays the first dimension which still exists beneath it.
Now, regardless of all your insults and statements of rejection, you cannot alter the simple facts that Holy Bible...and in particular the Gospels...were written with a full knowledge of these facts and that the entire scientific network must take it into account to get to the true nature of the universe.
-
Floo, Outrider:
The two dimensions I refer to are indisputable. One existed before the big-bang and is the background dimension that housed all the 'dark matter' that still exists today in the form of mass, energy and the second dimension which is the high-speed universe, triggered by the big-bang and which overlays the first dimension which still exists beneath it.
Now, regardless of all your insults and statements of rejection, you cannot alter the simple facts that Holy Bible...and in particular the Gospels...were written with a full knowledge of these facts and that the entire scientific network must take it into account to get to the true nature of the universe.
NM the people who wrote the documents making up the Bible so very long ago had NO knowledge of science and how the universe works. To state as fact they did, is a porky! ::)
-
NM the people who wrote the documents making up the Bible so very long ago had NO knowledge of science and how the universe works. To state as fact they did, is a porky! ::)
I do of course mean the author of the Holy Bible and not the scribes who had the full knowledge of how the universe works...Sorry if I didn't make that clear...but a Bible student would have realised that.
-
Cloud cuckoo land and then some! ::) Blimey NM your imagination is so remarkable you could find yourself being featured in the Guinness book of records! ;D
It's almost as bad as people seeing visions. isn't it! :)
-
I do of course mean the author of the Holy Bible and not the scribes who had the full knowledge of how the universe works...Sorry if I didn't make that clear...but a Bible student would have realised that.
There were many authors of the documents making up the Bible!
-
Put all this together and we get a force that is able to be manipulated and the first man to walk on water claims the prize for being the most advanced among us...and that was/is Jesus Christ.
NM, for one thing, Jesus did not claim to be purely man, so that half of your argument is somewhat redundant. As for the rest, what's your point?
-
The two dimensions I refer to are indisputable. One existed before the big-bang and is the background dimension that housed all the 'dark matter' (the static universe) that still exists today in the form of mass, energy and the second dimension which is the high-speed universe, triggered by the big-bang and which overlays the first dimension which still exists beneath it.
I think you're confusing the scientific use of 'dimensions' with the Marvel Comics use of it, which is more akin to universes. Given that all the available evidence suggests that time, as we understand it, is a facet of this universe in particular, what sense can anyone make of the concept of the other universe being 'faster'? How can things have a greater rate of change of a given quality with respect to a time that doesn't exist there?
Now, regardless of all your insults and statements of rejection, you cannot alter the simple facts that Holy Bible...and in particular the Gospels...were written with a full knowledge of these facts and that the entire scientific network must take it into account to get to the true nature of the universe.
Yes I can, watch: I reject the idea that the Bible was written with any significant input (most likely any input at all) from anyone with a grasp of the full knowledge of the facts of any sort of extra-universal physics. See, easy.
It would be harder to reject it if you actually made a guess rather than firing off pseudoscience like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition*.
O.
*copyright of Mr Tim Minchin, I believe...
-
NM the people who wrote the documents making up the Bible so very long ago had NO knowledge of science and how the universe works. To state as fact they did, is a porky! ::)
Probably about as big a porky as you have made, Floo. The basic elements of cosmology (ie the fact that the earth orbits around the sun) and of science - such as the concept behind gravity, were likely known to humanity. They may well not have referred to such things by the names we use now, but that isn't to say that their existence wasn't appreciated practically.
-
Probably about as big a porky as you have made, Floo. The basic elements of cosmology (ie the fact that the earth orbits around the sun) and of science - such as the concept behind gravity, were likely known to humanity.
You make this claim on what basis, exactly? Where does this 'likely' come from? You must have had a reason for choosing that word - what is it?
They may well not have referred to such things by the names we use now, but that isn't to say that their existence wasn't appreciated practically.
Bloody Nora, even this is a poorly-disguised appeal to ignorance :;)
-
Shaker, Hope, Outrider, Floo, BashfulAnthony:
I suppose that one of the things I am saying here is that Jesus Christ taught us about a free energy that is owned by his father and which we could participate in if we followed their rules...in a nutshell...Jesus' laws of righteousness.
Modern science is now saying that there is a zero point energy that is so abundant and is so in our midst that it could resolve all our energy needs. It is clearly an energy that exists because of the clashes between the two dimension I have been telling you about and the evidence is contained within every star, every atom, every galaxy and every item of life...we have just got to come to terms with it...and that is best served by following the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ before the forces that give us zero point energy slip the orbital moorings that are holding planet Earth in its current orbit and, in the process, stop all those who are building their greedy piles in their tracks, giving some of those alien observers who are waiting with anticipation, a good laugh at our expense...and where resurrection will come into its own.
This isn't what Almighty God or Jesus Christ want but we must face the facts and make alterations in our life styles to cater for the sciences that can either help us or cause our downfall.
-
Shaker, Hope, Outrider, Floo, BashfulAnthony:
I suppose that one of the things I am saying here is that Jesus Christ taught us about a free energy that is owned by his father and which we could participate in if we followed their rules...in a nutshell...Jesus' laws of righteousness.
Modern science is now saying that there is a zero point energy that is so abundant and is so in our midst that it could resolve all our energy needs. It is clearly an energy that exists because of the clashes between the two dimension I have been telling you about and the evidence is contained within every star, every atom, every galaxy and every item of life...we have just got to come to terms with it...and that is best served by following the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ before the forces that give us zero point energy slip the orbital moorings that are holding planet Earth in its current orbit and, in the process, stop all those who are building their greedy piles in their tracks, giving some of those alien observers who are waiting with anticipation, a good laugh at our expense...and where resurrection will come into its own.
This isn't what Almighty God or Jesus Christ want but we must face the facts and make alterations in our life styles to cater for the sciences that can either help us or cause our downfall.
I couldn't help noticing NM you're telling us , Jesus taught us, something neither you nor anyone else knows that this Jesus taught us anything, all you are doing when you say this is you're making an assertion that this Jesus of yours was teaching us.
There is no way you can prove this Jesus of yours taught us anything and dont forget when you assert something, another assertion can't be used as viable evidence that would in any way support the original assertion, I don't know why but this is something you can't seem to get a handle on.
So remember you to date haven't proved that you know if your Jesus taught anyone about anything but don't let that worry you NM nobody else has either, ever.
ippy
-
Shaker, Hope, Outrider, Floo, BashfulAnthony:
I suppose that one of the things I am saying here is that Jesus Christ taught us about a free energy that is owned by his father and which we could participate in if we followed their rules...in a nutshell...Jesus' laws of righteousness.
It has nothing to do with a 'free energy' NM. It is all about being truly human.
-
I couldn't help noticing NM you're telling us , Jesus taught us, something neither you nor anyone else knows that this Jesus taught us anything, all you are doing when you say this is you're making an assertion that this Jesus of yours was teaching us.
There is no way you can prove this Jesus of yours taught us anything and dont forget when you assert something, another assertion can't be used as viable evidence that would in any way support the original assertion, I don't know why but this is something you can't seem to get a handle on.
So remember you to date haven't proved that you know if your Jesus taught anyone about anything but don't let that worry you NM nobody else has either, ever.
ippy
I think you may have slipped into your own error, ippy, by asserting that no-one knows what 'this Jesus taught us'. Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
-
I think you may have slipped into your own error, ippy, by asserting that no-one knows what 'this Jesus taught us'. Do you have any evidence for this assertion?
"Here We Go Again Happy As Can Be".
ippy
-
He loves asking others for evidence, ipster - but just you try asking for evidence for his claims and see how far you get ...
-
Probably about as big a porky as you have made, Floo. The basic elements of cosmology (ie the fact that the earth orbits around the sun) and of science - such as the concept behind gravity, were likely known to humanity. They may well not have referred to such things by the names we use now, but that isn't to say that their existence wasn't appreciated practically.
I thought it was Isaac Newton who discovered gravity?
-
Shaker, Hope, Outrider, Floo, BashfulAnthony:
I suppose that one of the things I am saying here is that Jesus Christ taught us about a free energy that is owned by his father and which we could participate in if we followed their rules...in a nutshell...Jesus' laws of righteousness.
Modern science is now saying that there is a zero point energy that is so abundant and is so in our midst that it could resolve all our energy needs. It is clearly an energy that exists because of the clashes between the two dimension I have been telling you about and the evidence is contained within every star, every atom, every galaxy and every item of life...we have just got to come to terms with it...and that is best served by following the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ before the forces that give us zero point energy slip the orbital moorings that are holding planet Earth in its current orbit and, in the process, stop all those who are building their greedy piles in their tracks, giving some of those alien observers who are waiting with anticipation, a good laugh at our expense...and where resurrection will come into its own.
This isn't what Almighty God or Jesus Christ want but we must face the facts and make alterations in our life styles to cater for the sciences that can either help us or cause our downfall.
So the deity and Jesus are in communication with you, and tell you exactly what their thoughts are? How do they communicate, mobile phone, computer, Facebook, Twitter? ::)
-
I suppose that one of the things I am saying here is that Jesus Christ taught us about a free energy that is owned by his father and which we could participate in if we followed their rules...in a nutshell...Jesus' laws of righteousness.
Your first problem is that you are just telling us, you aren't showing us any data to support your claim or any explanatory mechanisms that would give us reason to accept what you're saying. Your second problem is that you are claiming science regularly, but then using scientific terms like 'energy' out of context.
Modern science is now saying that there is a zero point energy that is so abundant and is so in our midst that it could resolve all our energy needs.
At the expense of generating hugely destructive anti-matter which would need to be controlled and somehow stored or neutralised, at an exactly equal energy cost to the creation.
It is clearly an energy that exists because of the clashes between the two dimension I have been telling you about and the evidence is contained within every star, every atom, every galaxy and every item of life...
Again, what evidence? You've made an assertion, but you haven't backed it up with anything except a misrepresentation of what dimensions are (a misrepresentation that you have repeated after having had it pointed out to you).
and that is best served by following the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ before the forces that give us zero point energy slip the orbital moorings that are holding planet Earth in its current orbit and, in the process, stop all those who are building their greedy piles in their tracks, giving some of those alien observers who are waiting with anticipation, a good laugh at our expense...and where resurrection will come into its own.
How will people's behaviour - social and cultural activity - result in particle physics reactions? How will the division of zero-point potential into matter and anti-matter result in a gravitational shift outside of the Earth to effect orbital change?
This isn't what Almighty God or Jesus Christ want but we must face the facts and make alterations in our life styles to cater for the sciences that can either help us or cause our downfall.
If you have science, present science. If all you have is poetic accounts of why you think we should be nice to each other - a creditable sentiment - then own up to that.
O.
-
Outrider, Floo, Shaker, ippy, Hope:
Everything I say is built on top of modern science so that every science beneath it is supported by it, but it also exposes the fact that the Holy Bible is brought to us from the same route as this unifying science which tells us how the universe came into existence, how atoms and atomic forces were born, how gravity works and how electromagnetism is the kicking force that is exposed when we jiggle around with these dimensional forces that hold the atomic particles together..i.e. the Higgs (imploding force) bosun.
So…via the Holy Bible and in particular the Gospels we are guided into this science via the most important aspect that it offers us. The emotional state of the human being…What drives it and how it can work without injury and how it can recover from injury to such an extent that everlasting life becomes possible…all achievable by the taking in of the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ.
So, where’s the argument??
-
Outrider, Floo, Shaker, ippy, Hope:
Everything I say is built on top of modern science so that every science beneath it is supported by it, but it also exposes the fact that the Holy Bible is brought to us from the same route as this unifying science which tells us how the universe came into existence, how atoms and atomic forces were born, how gravity works and how electromagnetism is the kicking force that is exposed when we jiggle around with these dimensional forces that hold the atomic particles together..i.e. the Higgs (imploding force) bosun.
So…via the Holy Bible and in particular the Gospels we are guided into this science via the most important aspect that it offers us. The emotional state of the human being…What drives it and how it can work without injury and how it can recover from injury to such an extent that everlasting life becomes possible…all achievable by the taking in of the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ.
So, where’s the argument??
You have been asked before, what scientific qualifications do you have? I suspect most scientists would think you are talking gobbledegook, as you are equating the Bible with science, when many of the stories therein defy science, like the resurrection, as they are not credible!
-
Everything I say is built on top of modern science so that every science beneath it is supported by it, but it also exposes the fact that the Holy Bible is brought to us from the same route as this unifying science which tells us how the universe came into existence, how atoms and atomic forces were born, how gravity works and how electromagnetism is the kicking force that is exposed when we jiggle around with these dimensional forces that hold the atomic particles together..i.e. the Higgs (imploding force) bosun.
How is that with no apparent understanding of conventional science you can suggest this? You obviously have no understanding of physics, of the scientific method or of the conventions of scientific communication and technical terminology. This isn't 'built upon science', it's built upon faith and assertion and is attempting to co-opt science's successes.
So…via the Holy Bible and in particular the Gospels we are guided into this science via the most important aspect that it offers us. The emotional state of the human being…What drives it and how it can work without injury and how it can recover from injury to such an extent that everlasting life becomes possible…all achievable by the taking in of the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ.
No, we aren't.
So, where’s the argument??
That's what we asked you to provide, and instead you just made more assertions. I can't argue anything you say here because you don't really say anything here.
O.
-
You have been asked before, what scientific qualifications do you have? I suspect most scientists would think you are talking gobbledegook, as you are equating the Bible with science, when many of the stories therein defy science like the resurrection as they are not credible!
He may have been asked, but as previously pointed out, it is essentially irrelevant. He is right or wrong, and the arguments should be dealt with independent of the strangely prevelant argumentum ad certificatem that is cropping up frequently in the forum this week.
-
He may have been asked, but as previously pointed out, it is essentially irrelevant. He is right or wrong, and the arguments should be dealt with independent of the strangely prevelant argumentum ad certificatem that is cropping up frequently in the forum this week.
And in English please?????????
-
I thought it was Isaac Newton who discovered gravity?
Wasn't it discovered on one of those cooking programs, as usual we only got their stock answer.
ippy
-
Wasn't it discovered on one of those cooking programs, as usual we only got their stock answer.
ippy
I don't watch cookery programmes, they are MEGA BORING as far as I am concerned!
-
And in English please?????????
Other than being slightly inventive about the normal phraseology of fallacies, e.g: argumentum ad populum (commonly used on here), it was English, I would have expected a fairly mid range reader to have been able to see certificatem/certificate, and to understand the metonymy used.
What bits are you struggling with?
-
Outrider, Floo, Shaker, ippy, Hope:
Everything I say is built on top of modern science so that every science beneath it is supported by it, but it also exposes the fact that the Holy Bible is brought to us from the same route as this unifying science which tells us how the universe came into existence, how atoms and atomic forces were born, how gravity works and how electromagnetism is the kicking force that is exposed when we jiggle around with these dimensional forces that hold the atomic particles together..i.e. the Higgs (imploding force) bosun.
So…via the Holy Bible and in particular the Gospels we are guided into this science via the most important aspect that it offers us. The emotional state of the human being…What drives it and how it can work without injury and how it can recover from injury to such an extent that everlasting life becomes possible…all achievable by the taking in of the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ.
So, where’s the argument??
NM, without going into the inns and outs of your religious ideas just put that lot to one side only for a moment, got that?
Could you give me a rational explanation of how it can make sense to use an assertion to back up, or to prove if you like another assertion?
Don't forget that you're being asked for this explanation completely outside, separated from anything to do with your religion?
ippy
-
I don't watch cookery programmes, they are MEGA BORING as far as I am concerned!
I'll go with that but they do get into quantum mechanics on most of their programmes, well they might as well for all the interest they are to me too Floo.
ippy
-
Other than being slightly inventive about the normal phraseology of fallacies, e.g: argumentum ad populum (commonly used on here), it was English, I would have expected a fairly mid range reader to have been able to see certificatem/certificate, and to understand the metonymy used.
What bits are you struggling with?
Never mind dear! ::)
-
You have been asked before, what scientific qualifications do you have? I suspect most scientists would think you are talking gobbledegook, as you are equating the Bible with science, when many of the stories therein defy science, like the resurrection, as they are not credible!
I think the question that should be asked here Floo...is...What qualifications have you got to say I am wrong??
A working knowledge of the Holy Bible would be a good starting point.
For my part I am simply saying, which is both proven by Biblical quotation and the investigations of modern science that there is an invisible, superabundant, dynamic material come energy, that is indestructible, that resides within the universe.
This material/energy has been totally, scientifically conquered, by an authority that delivered us knowledge of this science under the banner of the one who owns that science...Almighty God...and, 2000 years ago, Jesus showed us how to harness that science for the purposes of repair, resurrection, and everlasting life...and really, that is all the qualification I need.
The rest is up to the individual who values the teaching of Jesus Christ to reach out for his science before the planet slips its orbital mooring.
-
I think the question that should be asked here Floo...is...What qualifications have you got to say I am wrong??
I don't know what qualifications Floo has, I have a degree in Engineering, a degree in Science and I'm working on one in Maths and Statistics, none of which changes anything: it doesn't matter whether someone's passed an exam in it or not, science is such that the argument stands for itself. You haven't made an argument, you've made some assertions. You don't need a qualification in science to know that you've not been reporting scientific findings.
A working knowledge of the Holy Bible would be a good starting point.
Why? The bible isn't a scientific work, it's at best a depiction of a philosophy.
For my part I am simply saying, which is both proven by Biblical quotation and the investigations of modern science that there is an invisible, superabundant, dynamic material come energy, that is indestructible within the universe.
That isn't 'proven by Biblical quotation' but it's broadly in line with conventional scientific thinking, yes.
This material/energy has been totally, and scientifically conquered by an authority that delivered us knowledge of this science under the banner of the one who owns that science...
And that's where you just hit assertion. You might believe that your god is a scientist, but you've no evidence that it is a scientist, or even that it is.
Almighty God, and, 2000 years ago, he showed us how to harness that science for the purposes of repair, resurrection, and everlasting life...and really, that is all the qualification I need.
Even if that were a science, given that the experiment hasn't been replicated, it's at best highly questionable.
The rest is up to the individual who values the teaching of Jesus Christ to reach out for his science before the planet slips its orbital mooring.
Nothing in Jesus' teachings has any impact on orbital mechanics or gravitation.
O.
-
NM you haven't answered post 55 on this thread yet, is there a problem with it or yourself?
I look forward to finding out what your viewpoint is about assertions, taking everything referred to in post 55, on this thread, into consideration.
ippy
-
Outrider:
You do your qualifications a disservice by not being able to see that a people 2000 years ago would have to be fed a scientific milk type science to get any grasp of the benefits of that science...You, however, have a full capability to know this world is heading for a great fall and therefore your constant barrage against a loving and caring teaching is inexcusable.
Gravity isn't a force with no strings, as is presented by your science...There are positive strings which follow positive patterns. The universe didn't just spring out of a dot smaller than an atom, implied by your sciences, it is the result of a complicated set of forces that were not only born from zero energy but created zero energy.
It is all written about in the Holy Bible...the one valid document that you refuse point blank to take any notice of so where is your credibility if you ignore a huge part of the data that has been set before you.
-
I think the question that should be asked here Floo...is...What qualifications have you got to say I am wrong??
A working knowledge of the Holy Bible would be a good starting point.
For my part I am simply saying, which is both proven by Biblical quotation and the investigations of modern science that there is an invisible, superabundant, dynamic material come energy, that is indestructible, that resides within the universe.
This material/energy has been totally, scientifically conquered, by an authority that delivered us knowledge of this science under the banner of the one who owns that science...Almighty God...and, 2000 years ago, Jesus showed us how to harness that science for the purposes of repair, resurrection, and everlasting life...and really, that is all the qualification I need.
The rest is up to the individual who values the teaching of Jesus Christ to reach out for his science before the planet slips its orbital mooring.
I probably know that book better than you! At least I don't use my imagination to read into it what isn't there! You obviously have no scientific qualifications whatsoever, and use the term often inappropriately to try to add credence to your assertions, which make them even sillier than they already are, imo!
-
Outrider:
You do your qualifications a disservice by not being able to see that a people 2000 years ago would have to be fed a scientific milk type science to get any grasp of the benefits of that science...You, however, have a full capability to know this world is heading for a great fall and therefore your constant barrage against a loving and caring teaching is inexcusable.
Gravity isn't a force with no strings, as is presented by your science...There are positive strings which follow positive patterns. The universe didn't just spring out of a dot smaller than an atom, implied by your sciences, it is the result of a complicated set of forces that were not only born from zero energy but created zero energy.
It is all written about in the Holy Bible...the one valid document that you refuse point blank to take any notice of so where is your credibility if you ignore a huge part of the data that has been set before you.
OH DEAR! ::)
-
You have been asked before, what scientific qualifications do you have? I suspect most scientists would think you are talking gobbledegook, as you are equating the Bible with science, when many of the stories therein defy science, like the resurrection, as they are not credible!
What theological qualifications do you have? I wonder if any atheist on here has any: or any other qualifications, either?
-
What theological qualifications do you have? I wonder if any atheist on here has any: or any other qualifications, either?
And as we keep pointing out, qualifications aren't that important in a debate as the argument has to stand for itself, not on your certifications, even if you could demonstrate that a Theology qualification was worth more than a napkin.
O.
-
What theological qualifications do you have? I wonder if any atheist on here has any: or any other qualifications, either?
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11220.msg571681#msg571681
-
And as we keep pointing out, qualifications aren't that important in a debate as the argument has to stand for itself, not on your certifications, even if you could demonstrate that a Theology qualification was worth more than a napkin.
O.
It helps to have some sort of decent background in the subject you are debating, as in any subject, rather than being bound by your bias, and having to rely on Google.
-
It helps to have some sort of decent background in the subject you are debating, as in any subject, rather than being bound by your bias, and having to rely on Google.
Subject or topic? We all have a reasonable background in reality, which equips us to talk about whether there's any reason to think there's a god in it. You have to have established that before you get to the point where you're talking about the qualities of any gods, but nobody gets past that first hurdle.
As to not relying on Google, why not - if the argument works it doesn't matter where it comes from.
O.
-
We all have a reasonable background in reality
You and your wild ideas, big O!
-
Even someone with the highest level of theological qualifications still can't prove a deity exists or that Jesus actually resurrected.
-
You and your wild ideas, big O!
It's like school - everyone goes, but some listen and some spend their time staring out the window :)
O.
-
Hi there NM it looks like you may have missed my previous posts on this thread about, without going into the inns and outs of your religious ideas just put that lot to one side only for a moment, got that?
Could you give me a rational explanation of how it can make sense to use an assertion to back up, or to prove if you like another assertion?
Don't forget that you're being asked for this explanation completely outside, separated from anything to do with your religion?
It would be very interesting to know how you would interpret assertions, or what your angle is on this subject, without any reference to religion, of course?
ippy
-
It's like school - everyone goes, but some listen and some spend their time staring out the window :)
O.
At my primary school in the 50s the windows were designed to be too high for kids to look out of!
-
Subject or topic? We all have a reasonable background in reality, which equips us to talk about whether there's any reason to think there's a god in it. You have to have established that before you get to the point where you're talking about the qualities of any gods, but nobody gets past that first hurdle.
As to not relying on Google, why not - if the argument works it doesn't matter where it comes from.
O...
Yes, but when it comes to being specific about aspects of the Bible, to discuss them with any degree of authority you need some learning background. I would have thought that was pretty obvious to anyone! As to Google: it is useful ad long as you use it intelligently, and not merely as an adjunct to your particular slant. And How many people here quote from google having checked the credentials and authorship of the site? Not many I suggest.
-
What theological qualifications do you have? I wonder if any atheist on here has any: or any other qualifications, either?
I'm not a member of "The Magic Circle", don't know that much about them, even the not knowing much about them I still know that there isn't any magic involved just as I'm sure you know this as well BA.
I don't need to be a member of the M C to know they're only performing tricks.
I don't need to be a member/follower of any religion to know etc etc etc, there's no evidence that___________
ippy
-
I'm not a member of "The Magic Circle", don't know that much about them, even the not knowing much about them I still know that there isn't any magic involved just as I'm sure you know this as well BA.
I don't need to be a member of the M C to know they're only performing tricks.
I don't need to be a member/follower of any religion to know etc etc etc, there's no evidence that___________
ippy
All of which is as clear an admission of ignorance as you could make. Well said, Ippy: I admire your honesty!
-
Yes, but when it comes to being specific about aspects of the Bible, to discuss them with any degree of authority you need some learning background.
No, you just need the knowledge. If you're employing someone, a relevant qualification save you having to test them, but you employ them for the capacity, not the certificate. In an argument you can cite your certificates as much as you like, but it doesn't make an invalid argument valid.
This is, perhaps, why you think that saying 'Midrash' justifies all sorts of cherry picking and selective interpretations, but it doesn't, it just describes them - you still need to explain.
As to Google: it is useful ad long as you use it intelligently, and not merely as an adjunct to your particular slant.
It's entirely possible to do both.
And How many people here quote from google having checked the credentials and authorship of the site? Not many I suggest.
Perhaps not, but then if their detail is wrong you have the opportunity to point that out.
O.
-
Perhaps not, but then if their detail is wrong you have the opportunity to point that out.
O.
It is incumbent on the person quoting to ensure, as fully as possible, that what they are saying is accurate, and not on the recipient to do so.
-
It is incumbent on the person quoting to ensure, as fully as possible, that what they are saying is accurate, and not on the recipient to do so.
It's good practice, yes, but people aren't perfect, and even checking up the source doesn't always help. I could be referred to, say, the encyclicals of the Catholic Church which many would consider to be an expert source, but I'm suggesting that you - amongst others - would dispute some of their statements.
O.
-
It's good practice, yes, but people aren't perfect, and even checking up the source doesn't always help. I could be referred to, say, the encyclicals of the Catholic Church which many would consider to be an expert source, but I'm suggesting that you - amongst others - would dispute some of their statements.
O.
Fair enough. But then I think you should not only say what your source is, but indicate that it may only be an opinion.
-
Fair enough. But then I think you should not only say what your source is, but indicate that it may only be an opinion.
I'm sure we all look forward to you following your own advice there, Bashers ;)
-
I'm sure we all look forward to you following your own advice there, Bashers ;)
As I've said often enough, I don't rely on googling for my opinions, unlike yourself, and a few others, who cannot get by without it.
-
Except you've never been able to show this to be the case, have you? ;)
-
Fair enough. But then I think you should not only say what your source is, but indicate that it may only be an opinion.
Perhaps, perhaps not - is quoting the New Testament as 'what Jesus said' a fact, or an opinion? Some would say it's a fact, they think the New Testament is an accurate historical account, whereas I'd say that it's an opinion.
By contrast, is saying 'Gravity is not actually a force' a fact or an opinion? The current scientific understanding is that gravity is an effect on space-time rather than actually a force, but scientific findings are technically provisional...
All you can do in a forum like this where the epistemology is as open to debate as anything else is make your point and be ready to support it if it's challenged.
O.
-
Except you've never been able to show this to be the case, have you? ;)
IF you mean how do I know that people rely on it for their views, then it if it were not so we have to acknowledge that we have amongst us some of the country's leading theologians, philosophers, scientists, etc. Very likely!
-
Some things are facts like gravity, as it appears to be provable, other things cannot be proved like much of what is recorded in the Bible.
-
IF you mean how do I know that people rely on it for their views, then it if it were not so we have to acknowledge that we have amongst us some of the country's leading theologians, philosophers, scientists, etc. Very likely!
More likely, less likely or about as likely that some people like reading books (proper ones, with pages and not USB slots) and remember what they've read?
-
More likely, less likely or about as likely that some people like reading books (proper ones, with pages and not USB slots) and remember what they've read?
Of course: the atheists are all avid readers of religious tomes, I'm sure!!
-
Of course: the atheists are all avid readers of religious tomes, I'm sure!!
Well, readers about religion at the very least: http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/
Atheists are one of the highest scoring groups on general religious knowledge...
O.
-
Of course: the atheists are all avid readers of religious tomes, I'm sure!!
Apart from the use of the word avid, some of them, certainly, yes. I'm not one of them but a great many atheists were once believers.
-
Apart from the use of the word avid, some of them, certainly, yes. I'm not one of them but a great many atheists were once believers.
Very true.
-
All of which is as clear an admission of ignorance as you could make. Well said, Ippy: I admire your honesty!
I can understand why say the above B A perhaps you could now explain to me how all of this deeply learned knowledge of yours has made you believe that these magic tricks and more really happened such as: comming back from the dead, talking snakes, burning bushes, walking on water, feeding the thousands with a few fish, Lazerous, the parting of the sea etc etc and on.
And how you are so learned you really believe this stuff, all without the slightest bit of credible evidence that might have supported, at the very least, some of it?
Ippy
-
I can understand why say the above B A perhaps you could now explain to me how all of this deeply learned knowledge of yours has made you believe that these magic tricks and more really happened such as: comming back from the dead, talking snakes, burning bushes, walking on water, feeding the thousands with a few fish, Lazerous, the parting of the sea etc etc and on.
And how you are so learned you really believe this stuff, all without the slightest bit of credible evidence that might have supported, at the very least, some of it?
Ippy
Ippy, I am much offended that you take so little notice of what I say. I have been saying for months that I don't believe all the OT stuff you quote.
-
So forget items 2, 3 and 7 on ippy's list and deal with the rest, which are all NT stories and which you do supposedly accept.
-
So forget items 2, 3 and 7 on ippy's list and deal with the rest, which are all NT stories and which you do supposedly accept.
Yes.
-
Yes.
Fire away then.
-
Fire away then.
?
-
?
Your response to ippy's questions in #92.
-
Your response to ippy's questions in #92.
I accept the witness accounts as the NT presents them. That is all.
-
That's not an explanation though. That's just saying: "I believe it because I believe it."
-
That's not an explanation though. That's just saying: "I believe it because I believe it."
What do you want me to say? I believe the NT Gospels. If I ask you whether you believe the Big Bang theory, I expect you to say yes. Full stop.
-
What do you want me to say? I believe the NT Gospels. If I ask you whether you believe the Big Bang theory, I expect you to say yes. Full stop.
Far from a full stop, since the next question ought to be: "Why do you do so?"
-
Far from a full stop, since the next question ought to be: "Why do you do so?"
I really think all this has been examined over and over here (for the last few years!), and you'll just have to accept my affirmation for now. As was once said, by Captain Kirk: "you'll have to go get your fun someplace else."
-
You make this claim on what basis, exactly? Where does this 'likely' come from? You must have had a reason for choosing that word - what is it?
Many years of reading historical material, scientific reports and other forms of literature. Also through listening to historians, scientists and other such professionals.
Bloody Nora, even this is a poorly-disguised appeal to ignorance :;)
No it isn't, Shaker. Let us take the famous example of Christ on the cross: the Roman soldiers knew that if they stuck a spear into a crucify-ee in the right place and got a mixture of what they termed 'blood and water', it was indicative of death. I'm not aware that they knew the medical terms for the fluids that came out, but they knew that the person was dead. Rather than an appeal to ignorance, its an appeal to experience.
By the way, that is a good example of you making the same mistake you accuse others of referred to on another thread.
-
Many years of reading historical material, scientific reports and other forms of literature. Also through listening to historians, scientists and other such professionals.
Can we have something a bit more concrete than your say-so and hand-waving?
By the way, that is a good example of you making the same mistake you accuse others of referred to on another thread.
Is this the one where I ask you for an example - evidence, in other words - of the sort of so-called "mistake" you think you mean and you run away and hide again? Just like here:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11230.msg571741#msg571741
Not only a second example of the brave Sir Robin act but a third is contained within that link.
-
Can we have something a bit more concrete than your say-so?
At this precise moment, no, since I don't have notes on all the material I've read and heard immediately to hand.
Is this the one where I ask you for an example - evidence, in other words - of the sort of so-called "mistake" you think you mean and you run away and hide again?
You claimed that I had used an appeal to ignorance. The use of that argument or claim suggests that you were, yourself, appealing to your own ignorance of reality.
-
At this precise moment, no, since I don't have notes on all the material I've read and heard immediately to hand.
I hope they're not hiding along with your two A4 pages of notes* on the "good reasons" (your phrase) why homosexuality was viewed "with revulsion through history and across cultures" (ditto) or we're all in for a bloody long wait.
You claimed that I had used an appeal to ignorance.
That's right - as you do so nauseatingly often.
The use of that argument or claim suggests that you were, yourself, appealing to your own ignorance of reality.
And you'd be the expert on reality, right?
Apropos which, how's the evidence coming along for your assertion that my explanation of the universe is "not a real one" on the "Changing our mind" thread on General Discussion?
* August 28th; still to materialise.
-
Many years of reading historical material, scientific reports and other forms of literature. Also through listening to historians, scientists and other such professionals.
No it isn't, Shaker. Let us take the famous example of Christ on the cross: the Roman soldiers knew that if they stuck a spear into a crucify-ee in the right place and got a mixture of what they termed 'blood and water', it was indicative of death. I'm not aware that they knew the medical terms for the fluids that came out, but they knew that the person was dead. Rather than an appeal to ignorance, its an appeal to experience.
On what basis have you excluded the possibility that these details aren't fictitious retro-added details to suggest that Jesus was clinically dead? At the very least this is a risk: I'm not claiming the account is accurate, but you are, so how have you assessed the risk that the spear/blood&water bit isn't fictitious detail added for effect?
The burden of proof here is yours!
-
Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Matthew 24:29 Isaiah 13:10 Revelation 6:13.
To the franchise holder of God’s ‘Grand Unification of All the Universal Forces’ this line from the Holy Bible can only mean one thing…The planet Earth is going to break out of its gravitational moorings. Due to all the abuses inflicted upon it the planet will suddenly, and without warning, centrifugally lurch beyond its normal orbit and pass to a new orbital position leaving the moon and the sun behind, and giving the impression that the stars are falling to the Earth.
The clues are all around us…global warming…the global, atmospheric, trumpet sounds, that have no apparent cause…the earthquakes and sink-holes that spring out of nowhere…all given adequate account of on YouTube and are telling us of the stresses and strains the world is having to resist.
The trauma is well recorded in the surrounding Biblical verses giving us the indication that those who are well prepared for it in a righteous and enduring way will be able to cope best and will survive especially with the mechanics of resurrection in their favour.
Hi Nick you want locking up utter trash.Shut the thread down and do us all a kindness.
-
Hi Nick you want locking up utter trash.Shut the thread down and do us all a kindness.
You obviously don't agree with the Holy Bible then ~TW~. You see, though my interpretation might not be to your liking I have built it up from the actual teaching of the Holy Bible and get my support from various events which tally with my reasoning. A devastating 3rd world war is identified by Jesus' very own messages of the signs of the 'last days' which culminate into what I describe...where the sun will no longer give off its full energy but we will need to rely on the energy of God's word as our primary source of strength...not because I say so but because Almighty God says so.
Whatever your view, you, as a Christian (If I remember correctly), shouldn't condemn anyone who says ...Follow the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ...above any reasoning or interpretation they might make of his word.
-
You obviously don't agree with the Holy Bible then ~TW~. You see, though my interpretation might not be to your liking I have built it up from the actual teaching of the Holy Bible and get my support from various events which tally with my reasoning. A devastating 3rd world war is identified by Jesus' very own messages of the signs of the 'last days' which culminate into what I describe...where the sun will no longer give off its full energy but we will need to rely on the energy of God's word as our primary source of strength...not because I say so but because Almighty God says so.
The problem, NM, is that several sects and cults argued the same for both the previous world wars. The point is that nothing definitively indiactes the last days - all the events decribed have occurred multiple times over the last 2000 years.
Whatever your view, you, as a Christian (If I remember correctly), shouldn't condemn anyone who says ...Follow the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ...above any reasoning or interpretation they might make of his word.
Unfortunately, NM, when interpretations, such as yours, don't match Scripture, that is when Christians need to distinguish between man-made ideas and God's.
-
On what basis have you excluded the possibility that these details aren't fictitious retro-added details to suggest that Jesus was clinically dead? At the very least this is a risk: I'm not claiming the account is accurate, but you are, so how have you assessed the risk that the spear/blood&water bit isn't fictitious detail added for effect?
The burden of proof here is yours!
OK, we know that someone called Jesus was crucified at the request of the Jewish religious leadership, and that the Romans would not have allowed him to live because of the influence the Jewish leadership had in Rome. We also know that under Jewish law, those sentenced to death had to be dead by the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath. We can also make an educated assumption that, since this all occurred at Passover, the Jewish authorites would be that much more vigilant in making sure that the death sentence had been completed.
If Jesus hadn't died, the Jewish and Roman authorities would have known about it and been able to produce his body once the resurrection stories started to circulate (after all, having requested the death sentence the Jewish authorities wouldn't have allowed his body to be released to anyone without being certain that he was dead).
In my view the very fact that the circumstances surrounding his arrest, conviction and crucifixion were so unusual that the Jewish authorities wouldn't have left anything to chance. As such, I would suggest that all your conspiracy theory-type ideas are the least likely of the options available to us.
Yes, I accept that that isn't definitive evidence, but then cases of this sort are often decided by the circumstantial evidence that surrounds the case.
-
I would suggest that all your conspiracy theory-type ideas are the least likely of the options available to us.
Very far indeed from the least likely of all the options though, isn't it?
-
I hope they're not hiding along with your two A4 pages of notes* on the "good reasons" (your phrase) why homosexuality was viewed "with revulsion through history and across cultures" (ditto) or we're all in for a bloody long wait.
I still have that material, some of which I posted on the thread that the mods closed down. I did notice that some people were unable to hold a rational debate on the issue.
That's right - as you do so nauseatingly often.
Not knowing the late 2nd /early 3rd millennium terms for certain ideas/concepts/items doesn't constitute ignorance, Shaker. The very fact that you insist in suggesting that it does indicates ignorance on your behalf.
And you'd be the expert on reality, right?
No, but I also don't believe that you, for all your fancy language and implications to the contrary, are either.
Apropos which, how's the evidence coming along for your assertion that my explanation of the universe is "not a real one" on the "Changing our mind" thread on General Discussion?
And that explanation was ... what? That the debate is done and dusted? That sounds extremely dogmatic. If it really was 'all done and dusted' I would expect the on-going philosophical debates not to be on-going, the continued existence of theology to have ceased and the efforts of science to find the answers to be unnecessary.
I have nothing against your holding the belief that all is done and dusted, in the same way that I have no problem with UKIP holding the belief that the UK would be better off outside of Europe: I happen to disagree (on both issues), as do many others.
-
Very far indeed from the least likely of all the options though, isn't it?
Well, all the ones that have been offered on this board (and that means other threads on this general subject as well) have all required the Jewish authorities to have been incompetent, disinterested in the outcome and unable to follow through on their purpose. Whilst one out of those three conditions could conceivably have occurred, the seriousness with which they took the Jesus situation would suggest that this particular set of scenarios are very, very low on any rational list of options.
-
OK, we know that someone called Jesus was crucified at the request of the Jewish religious leadership, and that the Romans would not have allowed him to live because of the influence the Jewish leadership had in Rome. We also know that under Jewish law, those sentenced to death had to be dead by the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath. We can also make an educated assumption that, since this all occurred at Passover, the Jewish authorites would be that much more vigilant in making sure that the death sentence had been completed.
If Jesus hadn't died, the Jewish and Roman authorities would have known about it and been able to produce his body once the resurrection stories started to circulate (after all, having requested the death sentence the Jewish authorities wouldn't have allowed his body to be released to anyone without being certain that he was dead).
In my view the very fact that the circumstances surrounding his arrest, conviction and crucifixion were so unusual that the Jewish authorities wouldn't have left anything to chance. As such, I would suggest that all your conspiracy theory-type ideas are the least likely of the options available to us.
Yes, I accept that that isn't definitive evidence, but then cases of this sort are often decided by the circumstantial evidence that surrounds the case.
There are two problems with this. The first is the assumption that the authorities were concerned about resurrection claims and could have produced the body if they wanted to - however, if the resurrection claims are post-hoc fiction then the authorities would have just conducted a routine execution.
The second problem is that this is all, as you say, circumstantial to the extent that it is indistinguishable from fiction and to date you guys haven't provided a basis to do any distinguishing: you can choose to believe the tale on a personal basis but you can't claim it's historical fact unless you can exclude the risks of human artifice - and you can't.
-
I still have that material, some of which I posted on the thread that the mods closed down.
Yes ... yes, I thought something of the kind would be the case. "I posted it but it disappeared." Right.
I did notice that some people were unable to hold a rational debate on the issue.
Hardly my problem.
Not knowing the late 2nd /early 3rd millennium terms for certain ideas/concepts/items doesn't constitute ignorance, Shaker. The very fact that you insist in suggesting that it does indicates ignorance on your behalf.
I'm not referring to anybody in the late 2nd/early 3rd millennium (I assume you mean century); I was referring to you.
No, but I also don't believe that you, for all your fancy language and implications to the contrary, are either.
1. It's a shame that the correct use of clear, precise and specific terms bothers you.
2. I'm not setting myself up as such any more than I'm calling myself a scientist, something else you've accused me of.
And that explanation was ... what? That the debate is done and dusted?
No; that the scientific method is not just the best but the only methodology we have for correctly describing/apprehending reality.
That sounds extremely dogmatic.
I'm still waiting to hear what your point is.
Id it really was 'all done and dusted' I would expect the on-going philosophical debates not to be on-going, the continued existence of theology to have ceased and the efforts of science to find the answers to be unnecessary.
No, because there are some benighted individuals who hold fanciful ideas about there being some other order of reality and similar stuff; the trouble is, whenever you ask them what they allege it to be and how they claim to know (in other words, what methodology they allege), they always find something else to do somewhere else.
Every time.
I happen to disagree (on both issues), as do many others.
Simply saying "I disagree" is the stuff of an old Monty Python sketch. What matters is what grounds you think you have for doing so.
-
There are two problems with this. The first is the assumption that the authorities were concerned about resurrection claims and could have produced the body if they wanted to - however, if the resurrection claims are post-hoc fiction then the authorities would have just conducted a routine execution.
And the problem with this is why they felt the need to get rid of Jesus. It's not as if he is recorded as having been a political and/or military leader - as many of the other 'Messiahs' of the time are recorded as having been. What's your explanation? Remember that, as Shakes likes to tell us, suggestions of this sort have to be backed up with evidence.
The second problem is that this is all, as you say, circumstantial to the extent that it is indistinguishable from fiction and to date you guys haven't provided a basis to do any distinguishing: you can choose to believe the tale on a personal basis but you can't claim it's historical fact unless you can exclude the risks of human artifice - and you can't.
Actually, from a purely logical perspectrive, the Gospel accounts are more likely than the other alternatives that have been proposed over the centuries, because they take the circumstances and social practices of the day into account far more than any of those other alternatives.
I accept that that isn't conclusive, but it does suggest that there is more truth to the accounts than some like to admit.
As I've said before, whilst people hold rigidly to a purely scientifically-confirmable understanding of evidence, we are never going to be abe to have a meaningful debate simply because we are working on totally different planes of reality. I'm never going to regard your understanding of reality as a complete understanding; you are never going to consider my understanding as valid.
-
Hope
I'm asking to provide a basis by which the risks oh human artifice can be eliminated so as to leave undisputed historical facts - and throwing in some ifs, nuts and maybes only shows that you can't: this is as expected.
You can chose to accept the tale on a personal basis but to pretend that you are doing so on the basis of knowledge isn't a sustainable position, since all your attempts to do so are fueled by these spurious and fallacious ifs, buts and maybes.
-
Hardly my problem.
I can't remember whether you posted on the thread, so I wasn't suggesting it was. However, your suggestion that I hadn't posted stuff was untrue.
I'm not referring to anybody in the late 2nd/early 3rd millennium (I assume you mean century); I was referring to you.
But I was referring to the former. The fact that people living in 1st century BC and 1st century AD weren't aware of the terms that we use for things in the late 2nd/early 3rd millennium doesn't mean that they didn't understand them. That is why I said that your comment showed your own ignorance. That opinion is reinforced by the response that I have just replied to.
1. It's a shame that the correct use of clear, precise and specific terms bothers you.
They don't bother me; its the pretentious use of Latin terms and their equivalents that get thrown around as if thowing them around makes someone's opinion appear more authoritative.
2. I'm not setting myself up as such any more than I'm calling myself a scientist, something else you've accused me of.Actually, it was someone else who 'accused' you of being a scientist (possibly BA). They also said that you seem to want to make out that you are an authority in just about every field that you choose to comment on. I certainly didn't suggest that they were wrong!!
No; that the scientific method is not just the best but the only methodology we have for correctly describing/apprehending reality.
Only the case if reality is only scientifically provable. For a number of reasons, that I have covered several times in the past, I don't believe that is limited to this, and therefore I disagree with your assumptions.
No, because there are some benighted individuals who hold fanciful ideas about there being some other order of reality and similar stuff; the trouble is, whenever you ask them what they allege it to be and how they claim to know (in other words, what methodology they allege), they always find something else to do somewhere else.
Well, after the likes of Jim, myself, Alien and others have outlined their case(s) with no reasonable response forthcoming from the likes of you, repeated repetition can become somewhat tedious.
Simply saying "I disagree" is the stuff of an old Monty Python sketch. What matters is what grounds you think you have for doing so.
Is there really any point in my regurgitating the grounds I have for my understanding and disagreement on pretty well every thread? Are you unable to carry the arguments I and others have given over the years from one thread to another?
-
Hope
I'm asking to provide a basis by which the risks oh human artifice can be eliminated so as to leave undisputed historical facts - and throwing in some ifs, nuts and maybes only shows that you can't: this is as expected.
You can chose to accept the tale on a personal basis but to pretend that you are doing so on the basis of knowledge isn't a sustainable position, since all your attempts to do so are fueled by these spurious and fallacious ifs, buts and maybes.
Yet, very little 'historical fact' exists from that time period - what was written down was often written down more than 2 or 3 decades after the events and often by the conquerors - yet no-one makes that great a deal of accepting what we're told. I have yet to see anyone provide a rational explanation why the 'risks of human artifice' as you call them have any concrete validity. All I have seen is allusion to the concepts and implications of why they are valid, based on 20th and 21st century interpretations of the context - again, something that the likes of Jim and I have addressed perfectly logically.
-
I can't remember whether you posted on the thread, so I wasn't suggesting it was. However, your suggestion that I hadn't posted stuff was untrue.
I've never seen it, and you are not given to backing up the assertions you throw around like confetti. Now you claim it once existed but was removed. What am I supposed to think?
But I was referring to the former.
I wasn't.
They don't bother me
The impression is very much otherwise, given your use of the phrase "fancy language."
its the pretentious use of Latin terms and their equivalents that get thrown around as if thowing them around makes someone's opinion appear more authoritative.
It should do, when there's a correct term for the sort of laziness of mind and sloppy thinking you indulge in daily - logical fallacies, etc.
Only the case if reality is only scientifically provable.
The project is ongoing of course but it's holding up pretty damned well so far.
For a number of reasons, that I have covered several times in the past, I don't believe that is limited to this, and therefore I disagree with your assumptions.
I haven't seen you cover any such thing, and given your history of evasion of which I do have wearisome experience since I've been posting here then I'm perfectly justified in thinking that you've not covered any such thing.
Well, after the likes of Jim, myself, Alien and others have outlined their case(s) with no reasonable response forthcoming from the likes of you, repeated repetition can become somewhat tedious.
Like when I have to keep pointing out the fallacies you employ daily.
Is there really any point in my regurgitating the grounds I have for my understanding and disagreement on pretty well every thread?
Yes - so that I can see if you have a coherent case to make that holds water. That point.
Are you unable to carry the arguments I and others have given over the years from one thread to another?
I haven't been posting here for years. A member since the BBC boards closed, yes, certainly, but I didn't even sign in here for years let alone post here. Why am I not surprised that this so-called evidence you're claiming you posted supposedly appeared at some unspecified point in the past when I was in no position to see it? If it's not that, it's "I posted it but the mods removed the thread it was on." It's one excuse after another after another - everything but a straight answer to a straight question.
You could, of course, provide links to these alleged posts.
-
On what basis have you excluded the possibility that these details aren't fictitious retro-added details to suggest that Jesus was clinically dead? At the very least this is a risk: I'm not claiming the account is accurate, but you are, so how have you assessed the risk that the spear/blood&water bit isn't fictitious detail added for effect?
The burden of proof here is yours!
The indisputable truth that supports the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is science.
How could anyone have possibly known 2000 years ago that the universe is made from an indestructible energy that could make all of the universe and all of its science, some science already revealed and much science yet to be revealed...and at the root of it all is this promise...anyone who follows me (Jesus Christ) will never die, and the truth of this proves the truth of the entire Holy Bible, and gives Gordon and Hope the possibility of proving it for themselves...and the alternative is just adding to the worlds misery and eternal damnation...Why go for the alternative when the truth is proven through science.
-
Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Matthew 24:29 Isaiah 13:10 Revelation 6:13.
To the franchise holder of God’s ‘Grand Unification of All the Universal Forces’ this line from the Holy Bible can only mean one thing…The planet Earth is going to break out of its gravitational moorings. Due to all the abuses inflicted upon it the planet will suddenly, and without warning, centrifugally lurch beyond its normal orbit and pass to a new orbital position leaving the moon and the sun behind, and giving the impression that the stars are falling to the Earth.
The clues are all around us…global warming…the global, atmospheric, trumpet sounds, that have no apparent cause…the earthquakes and sink-holes that spring out of nowhere…all given adequate account of on YouTube and are telling us of the stresses and strains the world is having to resist.
The trauma is well recorded in the surrounding Biblical verses giving us the indication that those who are well prepared for it in a righteous and enduring way will be able to cope best and will survive especially with the mechanics of resurrection in their favour.
A nuclear blast and fall out would cause that...
-
Yet, very little 'historical fact' exists from that time period - what was written down was often written down more than 2 or 3 decades after the events and often by the conquerors - yet no-one makes that great a deal of accepting what we're told.
True - so best to be cautious about the risks of post-hoc bias, mistake, exaggeration and lies - especially when outlandish claims are involved that date from antiquity and a culture where credulous religiosity was the norm.
I have yet to see anyone provide a rational explanation why the 'risks of human artifice' as you call them have any concrete validity.
So, are we to conclude that you believe that people can't benefit from human artifice or use it to advance their agenda: really?
Perhaps it is more the case that you are as wary as I am when faced with potential snake-oil vendors but you are indulging in some special pleading that the early Christians behind the NT were somehow immune from such vices. Tell me, do you believe every word uttered by our beloved politicians?
All I have seen is allusion to the concepts and implications of why they are valid, based on 20th and 21st century interpretations of the context - again, something that the likes of Jim and I have addressed perfectly logically.
Jim isn't participating in this thread so I'm not going to comment on your reference to him. So, are you saying here that mistakes and lies are somehow less worrying when these are raised as risks associated with the ancient cause you happen to support? It is almost as if you think these early Christians were somehow infallible and unquestionably trustworthy!
-
OK, we know that someone called Jesus was crucified at the request of the Jewish religious leadership, and that the Romans would not have allowed him to live because of the influence the Jewish leadership had in Rome.
No, we don't know that. There's no Roman record of any such thing, and they were remarkably thorough in their record-making and record-keeping.
There's an allegation from well after the fact by people building up the cult of Jesus that this happened, and two references from well after the fact to the cult of Jesus and its beliefs.
Historians, typically, are willing to concede that it's entirely possible the account is based on someone, but with very few details.
We also know that under Jewish law, those sentenced to death had to be dead by the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath.
Why would the Romans give a toss for the Jewish traditions?
We can also make an educated assumption that, since this all occurred at Passover, the Jewish authorites would be that much more vigilant in making sure that the death sentence had been completed.
We have no reliable account of when it happened. We have no reason to think that the Jewish authorities would have been allowed to make decisions on the timing.
If Jesus hadn't died, the Jewish and Roman authorities would have known about it and been able to produce his body once the resurrection stories started to circulate (after all, having requested the death sentence the Jewish authorities wouldn't have allowed his body to be released to anyone without being certain that he was dead).
Except that there's no evidence of anyone making the claims of resurrection until decades later, at which point - in the absence of any records - the Romans wouldn't have had any clue on where to even look for remains.
In my view the very fact that the circumstances surrounding his arrest, conviction and crucifixion were so unusual that the Jewish authorities wouldn't have left anything to chance.
In my view, the 'evidence' for any circumstances surrounding his arrest, conviction and crucifixion are highly suspect.
As such, I would suggest that all your conspiracy theory-type ideas are the least likely of the options available to us.
I agree. The most likely explanation is that nothing remarkable happened, and forty-something years later some people with a vested interest documented the mythologising of a wandering philosopher.
Yes, I accept that that isn't definitive evidence, but then cases of this sort are often decided by the circumstantial evidence that surrounds the case.
It'd be great if we even had that - we don't. We have entirely biased accounts from within the already established cult making historical claims for which the other actors in the alleged events have no documentation or recollection.
O.
-
And the problem with this is why they felt the need to get rid of Jesus.
No, the problem is that you aren't able to demonstrate that they did get rid of Jesus, or that Jesus actually was. They got rid of some people who were civic agitators because they were an invading power exerting their authority - they did it before and they did it again afterwards, and Jesus was so significant that they completely failed to record him AT ALL, despite recording at least some (if not all) of the others.
It's not as if he is recorded as having been a political and/or military leader - as many of the other 'Messiahs' of the time are recorded as having been. What's your explanation? Remember that, as Shakes likes to tell us, suggestions of this sort have to be backed up with evidence.
Yes, they do. It's not as if he's recorded at all. Nothing. No contemporary references.
Actually, from a purely logical perspectrive, the Gospel accounts are more likely than the other alternatives that have been proposed over the centuries, because they take the circumstances and social practices of the day into account far more than any of those other alternatives.
Except that they're predicated on being a better explanation for events that we have very little reason to think actually happened, and no reason whatsoever to think resulted in magical endings like 'resurrection'.
I accept that that isn't conclusive, but it does suggest that there is more truth to the accounts than some like to admit.
No, it doesn't. It's 'if any of this actually happened, I can explain that magical claims better with magic than you can with science.' Well no shit, Sherlock. That still leaves you with the small stumbling blocks of a) no-one has any decent reason to think that it actually happened and b) magic isn't real.
As I've said before, whilst people hold rigidly to a purely scientifically-confirmable understanding of evidence, we are never going to be abe to have a meaningful debate simply because we are working on totally different planes of reality.
Well, no. We're working on demonstrable reality, you aren't demonstrating anything, you're just making up arbitrary claims. We have more evidence of Muhammed and Joseph Smith than we do of Jesus, yet you discredit their claims - why?
I'm never going to regard your understanding of reality as a complete understanding; you are never going to consider my understanding as valid.
That's because you don't give us anything to understand. You claim Jesus because of the Bible, back up the Bible with 'These were honest people, they followed Jesus', ignore the fact that the entire thing is built upon claims of magic and then claim that other arguments aren't valid because they have a presumption that arguments should be based on reliable claims...
O.