The Sun Will Be Darkened

[Shaker]

That's not an explanation though. That's just saying: "I believe it because I believe it."

[BashfulAnthony]

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.

[Shaker]

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?"

[BashfulAnthony]

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."

[Hope]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Gordon]

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!

[~TW~]

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.

[NicholasMarks]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Shaker]

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?

[Hope]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Hope]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[Hope]

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]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[NicholasMarks]

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.

[Sassy]

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...