quote: if the Bible's historical narratives are inaccurate, then I see no reason to view the Bible's spiritual teachings as an ultimate authority
See, I would. Factually inaccurate is different from untrue.
quote: - it would be then reduced to the collected wisdom of one tribe of ancient people (which seems to be a common view among both liberal theologians and non-Christians).
Can I assume you acknowledge that there are liberal, Christian theologians?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, just because I have trouble letting things lie, I am one Mormon whose personal opinion about death before the Fall differs from Human 2.0's.
I suspect that the natural process of "death" has been a part of life from the beginning. It's how creatures eat, renew themselves, and make room for future generations.
But it only started to take on the meaning it has for humans (ie, a mortal's time of earthly probation being cut short, with the chance of a harsh moral judgment in the hereafter, and the need for an atoning sacrifice) in the moment when Adam and Eve became morally-conscious children of God.
The specific story of the Garden of Eden could very easily be a highly symbolic retelling of a real event. We already largely consider "the serpent" to be a metaphor for Lucifer. There is no reason that other parts of the story might be metaphorical as well, so long as the true events still support the Mormon doctrine surrounding the atonement of Christ.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't understand why you believe that if the initial genesis story is untrue that is makes the entire bible untrue. The first five books were given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. Who is to say that G-d did not include those stories for purposes of His own.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are then left with the interesting problem of explaining why we aren't still seeing this process going on. As I pointed out earlier, the number of species in the world is such that you would need, basically, a new one in every generation. (Incidentally, the limit wouldn't be 6k years, but whatever time you want to say has passed since the Flood.) So why aren't we seeing a new species of sheep every year?
I was under the impression that the fossil record indicated that there were time periods where there was a rapid introduction of species followed by a much slower rate of species being introduced and on and on. If that is the case, then perhaps that indicates that some other factor, like large scale environmental conditions, plays a large role in the rate of evolution. And if that is also true, then I see no reason why evolution could not have occurred at a much different rate than what we observe now.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't understand why you believe that if the initial genesis story is untrue that is makes the entire bible untrue. The first five books were given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. Who is to say that G-d did not include those stories for purposes of His own.
I have a problem worshipping a God who deludes his chosen nation for "purposes of His own". I might not throw away Christianity altogether, but as I said, I would find a hard time justifying why what is then no more than the collective wisdom of the Jews is more significant than the collective wisdom of any other ancient group with religious convictions.
Some people today claim that my position is tantamount to claiming that God deludes people through the geologic/astronomic evidence. That is not so. That evidence would not be interpreted the way it is if as in my post above, we did not seperate the circumstancial evidence of nature from the primary evidence of the written account of the creator.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well one thing is for certain. You just can't argue with someone who takes the bible 100% litteraly. The book itself is all the evidence they need.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why does having evolution mean no Adam and Eve? At some point, pre-humans became humans. God calls the first two Adam and Eve (or Adam and Chava, actually ) and imbues them with souls.
Et voilą!
The problem is for the bible literalists. Bible says Eve is made from Adam's rib, Adam is I believe made from dirt.
Dust, actually.
My point was that the line between those who believe in divine creation and those who believe in evolution is not nearly as clear-cut as some would like to believe.
I also agree with (some of) what Puppy said. Well, not the specifically Christian and/or Mormon parts, naturally. But that death could have started as a purely natural phenomenon and become spiritually significant only with Adam and Chava, certainly. (The Maharal suggested something very similar over 400 years ago.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Avin: [QUOTE]Some people today claim that my position is tantamount to claiming that God deludes people through the geologic/astronomic evidence. That is not so. That evidence would not be interpreted the way it is if as in my post above, we did not seperate the circumstancial evidence of nature from the primary evidence of the written account of the creator.
You agree, then, that if it were not for the Bible, there would be no way a reasonable scientist would look at the evidence and see a 6000-year-old Earth?
And given that this is so, why should we take the Bible over, say, the Rig-Vedas, which have completely different claims about the age of the Earth?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And given that this is so, why should we take the Bible over, say, the Rig-Vedas, which have completely different claims about the age of the Earth?
"We" clearly shouldn't base our beliefs about the age of the earth on any scripture, if "we" includes King of Men, who categorically rejects works of scripture as legitimate sources of learning.
Avin, however, might choose the Bible over the Rig Vedas because subjective personal experience has led him to accept the Bible as being from God, and therefore as being a worthwhile source of learning.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hang on, though. I am provisionally going to assume that Avin's experience is not of the form "God writes in letters of fire that the bible is His personal creation and every word is to be taken literally". So we get that the Bible, according to Avin's personal experience, is a worthwhile source of morality; I do not myself agree, but that is not relevant. Where in this do we learn that the Bible is a good source for history? From the evidence which he assembles to show that it is historically accurate; but he agrees that he would not have done such a thing if not for the bible.
So we have a chain of reasoning that goes
The Bible is a good source of morality -> The Bible is historically accurate -> This evidence, in light of the latter fact, shows that the Bible is historically accurate.
Now in the first place, I think the last two are circular; but in any case, the first step is just a plain old non sequitur.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
1) The Bible is historically and scientifically accurate.
2) All scientific and historical accounts that differ from the Bible are suspect, and must be rejected because of (1).
3) All remaining scientific and historic accounts therefore agree with the Bible.
4) Because all of the acceptable scientific and historic accounts agree with the Bible, the Bible is therefore proven to be historically and scientifically accurate.
But in Avin's defense, use "science" instead of "the Bible." I would say "Use 'history'", but history is not, on its own, predictive. It's descriptive only, and therefore its "accuracy" is measured differently, anyhow.
BTW, I believe that science will stand the test far better than the Bible, but I promised not to dog-pile Avin.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can the Bible be scientifically accurate until science can explain the existance of God? By science I mean the method, not the people.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As opposed to the Bible, which has been wrong in certain claims for about ~2000 years and continues to be wrong in the exact same ways ? At least science has a well established system for correcting itself, even if individual scientists don't execute it perfectly.
But the thing is, with science, you only know something was wrong because some better theory came along. I'm sorry that last sentence was in rhyme. Anyway, Camus, do you really think that, as you read this on your computer - which I'm sure the Vatican wasn't responsible for - science hasn't already stood the test of time at least as well as the bible? In fact, probably more so, since you might say early man was performing a crude sort of science when he started crafting tools and making fire.
It just continues to amaze me that people keep comparing science to religion. It's so tiring to here arguments that boil down to one group yelling "God is better" and the other "Science is better." Not that that happens much on Hatrack, thankfully. They're almost mutually exclusive anyway. I'm an agnostic and I wouldn't study physics (or any science) to deal with a moral issue. Why would a smart, educated, religous person insist on consulting the Bible with a scientific question?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:At least science has a well established system for correcting itself...with science, you only know something was wrong because some better theory came along
Science is only as good, or as correct, as our current knowledge and information gathering abilities allow it to be. In other words, science and our knowledge of ourselves and the universe is constantly changing, constantly being revised to fit the information that we have. This is not unlike the Bible. The Bible, or more specifically, the interpretation of it, is constantly being revised to fit the information that we have. (Some people, however, hold to certain Biblical thoughts more than others despite what current knowledge may suggest. I will address this later.)
However, Science and Religion are completely different topics and fields of study. So if any comparison is made, it should be made on the grounds of the intended use of each field of study. The purpose of science is to tell us how things work. The Bible is more of a moral guide. In the last 4,000 years, science has been wrong on a great number of things. In contrast, the Bible has some moral guidelines that we can all agree upon which have been true for thousands of years, which will probably also hold true for humans thousands of years from now. (The question of whether people should get their sense of morality from a book is a question for a different thread) Granted, not all of the Bible's moral guidelines are agreed upon by everyone as being the best, but it has a fairly decent record. So, in answer to your question, I do not think that science has stood the test of time any better than the Bible has. I truly believe that thousands of years from now, when the current scientific theories have changed, certain moral guidelines, such as treating others as we would want to be treated, will still be beneficial.
So, "Why would a smart, educated, religious person insist on consulting the Bible with a scientific question?" Certain, if not many, scientific findings are of little consequence to the everyday lives of most people. The age of the earth is not going to change the way I live my life any more so than whether Inflation did indeed cause the universe to expand during its earliest stage of life. The fact that science is only correct in the sense that it is the best knowledge that we can have given the abilities and information we have available to us is not enough of an assurance to cause some people to abandon certain beliefs. The scientific method is a great way learning, but it's only as good as the tools that it has to work with.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: I like agreeing with Rivka. Makes me feel smart
Piffle. You are intelligent and well-spoken in your own right, Geoff. (Well, at least you were back in the days that you got a decent amount of sleep at night. )
And I think that even on those occasions that you are completely wrong. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: As opposed to the Bible, which has been wrong in certain claims for about ~2000 years and continues to be wrong in the exact same ways ?
What, exactly, has the Bible claimed that it continues to be wrong about?
quote:Camus, do you really think that, as you read this on your computer - which I'm sure the Vatican wasn't responsible for - science hasn't already stood the test of time at least as well as the bible?
Actually, science was a religious endeavor and always has been until the 2 started disagreeing (like Earth being round, sun at center of universe, origin of man).
quote:In fact, probably more so, since you might say early man was performing a crude sort of science when he started crafting tools and making fire.
And how are you so sure what early man was doing? The theory of evolution is a theory for a very good reason. It isn't proved, yet you talk as if it were true with almost religious conviction.
What if we are all wrong? What if premortal man was kidnapped by aliens from another planet and dropped off here by mistake? Nobody can disprove this theory. Neither can anyone disprove the Adam theory.
The whole point of religion is that there is a method for learning truth that is not the scientific method. There are some things that can't be studied by the scientific method, and it is our emotions. You can study them to a point. But eventually the act of asking how people feel will change what the people feel. That is, the study alters the experiment. You can't maintain an untainted control group.
I, however, can study how I feel and come to my own conclusion what my feelings mean. And using scientific method techniques, I can decide that my feelings are evidence that there is a God, who chooses not to be studied, but is leaving his existance questionable enough that if I wanted, I could ignore him. Which in turns stands as a witness what my true feelings are towards him.
Kinda like a king who dresses like a beggar and wanders in the streets to see how his advisors act while not in his presense. Do the advisors treat the beggar kindly, or spit and revile them?
Of course God doesn't want us to be able to prove he exists. That would defeat the purpose of why we are here! But he isn't going to leave us completely without his help, so he talked to some people who did believe him, and they wrote books like the Bible.
Meaning, I think I *do* have evidence that suggests the Bible gives a correct account of the begining of man, because I've decided that in studying how I feel, it suggests God is real.
So in my opion, what it all comes down to is who knows what emotions mean. I would almost say that artists understand more about human emotions than scientists. Scientists are good at studying things. Artsits are good at putting music, pictures, or stories to things that we can't see, but feel are true.
I hope one day we can study religious stuff scientifically. Take resurrection. That has got to be one of the wackiest religious beliefs there is. Wouldn't it be cool to find out how it will work?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, science was a religious endeavor and always has been until the 2 started disagreeing (like Earth being round, sun at center of universe, origin of man).
Science, in it's most basic form, is a method of learning by observation, experimentation, and evaluation. The scientific method that we have today has merely been refined from these three actions. By this definition, even trial and error would count as science, and rightly so.
Therefore, Human, no, I'm not sure at all about what early man was doing, but I have to imagine that most of early technological learning came from accident and trial and error. Certainly this was taking place long before any religions that we know of today. Whether or not, and to what extent, it was affected by any early religious beliefs are questions that I would be very interested to learn the answers to.
Also, Human, I didn't actually mention evolution in my post, but since you brought it up...I'm very tired of the "it's only a theory, it's not proven" argument. Sometimes I think people are being purposefully dense on this one; a theory doesn't mean it's just some crazy dream that Darwin had one night. It means an organization of facts that explain some phenomenon, in this case the massive species diffrentiation on Earth. And no, it hasn't been proved in the sense that it is insurmountable, but there is a mountain of facts supporting it as a theory. We also, for example, have a Theory of Flight, but I'm sure you don't worry about that being unproven when you get on an airplane.
I also disagree with the statement that it is scientifically impossible to study emotions. I will readily admit that we're not very good at it yet, but it is a relatively new science, and one of the most potentially complex. Furthermore, I might study my feelings, and using the scientific method, decide that there is no god, or that the Earth is a sentient being that views all organisms on the planet as an infestation and natural disasters are it's immune system, or any number of increasingly ridiculous things. My point here is not to mock your faith, but to point out the flaw in your logic.
Camus, I have to agree with you that certain moral guidelines have stood up to time very well. The Golden Rule would be my choice of example as well.
In regards to your last paragraph, let me rephrase my question and see if that changes how you view it. Why would a smart, educated, religious person snub the best available information we have today in favor of what was common knowledge millennia ago? I guess what I'm saying is that, when it comes down to it, I'd take and honest "this is the best we have" over a "This is absolutely the way things are" any day. I'm always made a little nervous by anyone who's absolutely sure of almost anything.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Golden Rule, incidentally, has nothing to do with the Bible. Confucius formulated it while the Jews were still extolling the virtues of slaughtering anyone who got in their way.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
If you're still involved in the thread, could you take a stab at explaining the existence and abundance of coal within a 6,000 year time span and the time since the flood?
Or...does anyone else know how a young earth creation version would account for coal?
I mean other than saying "God plunked it down." I'd be interested in an account of coal's origins from organic matter. How come it's associated with rocks bearing impressions of extinct plant species. What rapid process created coal from the organic material in the time allotted. How all this surface material came to be buried so far under ground throughout most of the world. Why it is distributed the way it is around the globe. That sort of thing.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men, I'd be interested to see your source for that. The Wikipedia page I looked at (admittedly not the best possible source) traces the Goldon Rule back to Ancient Egypt 1970-1640 BCE.
Edit: Also, your point is kind of moot since weren't arguing the origin of the Rule, but the fact that it is a moral lesson in the Bible that has stood the test of time.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Neither of your above series of propositions represents my reasoning with regard to scripture. The first note is that the Bible is not one book; it is a compilation of several books. When looking at them for purposes of reliability, it is true that I believe they are all equally true and authoritative, but that does not mean I support that unconditionally for all books simultaneously. Here is a more accurate reflection of my reasoning:
1. A claim is made that there was once a man who died and then lived again due to his identification with the creator of all reality. - Subreasoning: Due to various historical evidences including the reaction of his followers, the unlikeliness of his claims to be "successful" in the Greco-Roman world, and the global impact of the movement he started, I accept this claim as true. 2. Given this claim, this man should be able to speak as an absolute authority on both moral/spiritual and historical truth (the one does not follow from the other). 3. I deem the textual evidence sufficient for this man's teachings and the teachings of his followers to be reliably discerned in the present day. 4. These writings indicate that this man fully affirmed the moral and historical scriptural authority of the books of the Old Testament.
Therefore, I accept both the moral and historical teachings of the Old Testament as authoritative - however there is obviously much more historical teaching than moral teaching (even laws given for the people of Israel are historical, not necessarily moral).
So in effect, my views are centered not on scripture in themselves but on the event that validates them, the resurrection. If point (1) above could be shown to be false (such as, by finding the bones of Jesus) then I would abandon my view of the authority of scripture because I would see no guarantee to their truth above any other historical paradigm, including Rig-Vedas, materialistic naturalism, etc. So to Juxtapose: I am not absolutely sure of all this either. I could be entirely wrong from the start. But as you suggest, this is the "best I have" with what I've seen, and I find that using the Bible as an interpretive paradigm for ancient history has not caused me to jump through sufficient hoops to reject that.
posted
Bob_Scopatz : To anyone who shares my views, there are four ways anything that is found under the earth can have arrived there:
1. It was originally created there 2. It was deposited there between creation and the flood 3. It was deposited there by the flood itself 4. It was deposited there since the flood
Given our assumptions, and what we know of the size of the earth, the vast majority of material in the earth is still roughly in the way it was when it was originally created (1), since events in 2, 3, and 4, could only have primarily effected the earth's crust. Out of what is remaining, the vast majority of material found would be attributed to (3). Period 2 is thought to have left little traces because it is hypothesized that the environment was more stable, having been created perfect and only marred by sin, and therefore less prone to natural disasters. Period 4 would then primarily have left traces following events such as local floods, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.
I'm not a geologist so I can't defend this with much more than what I've already stated, but given that, it's my belief that most coal was therefore formed in the flood.
For those discussing the Golden Rule: in my previous post, it should be clear that I don't view the Bible's moral teachings as authoritative because I believe they were first, nor would I exclude the fact that other civilizations would have come up with moral teachings that the Bible would encourage. So it may very well be the case that Jesus explicitly knew that he was referencing an idea from other cultures as well as his own; that does not make it less significant. (Similarly, it may very well be that alternate versions of Biblical history, such as the Gilgamesh account of the flood, predate the Biblical version - that does not mean the Biblical version is less accurate).
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So in effect, my views are centered not on scripture in themselves but on the event that validates them, the resurrection. If point (1) above could be shown to be false (such as, by finding the bones of Jesus) then I would abandon my view of the authority of scripture because I would see no guarantee to their truth above any other historical paradigm
This is a remarkably flimsy worldview, isn't it? After all, despite your own claim for #1, the evidence is astonishingly poor for this particular argument. Basically, you CHOOSE to believe in the Resurrection despite the complete lack of supporting evidence. Why not, then, just CHOOSE to believe in the accompanying morality?
Let's look at your evidence for the Resurrection AND the following argument that resurrection implies moral authority:
quote:Due to various historical evidences including... 1) the reaction of his followers
We have only third-party accounts of the reactions of his followers, unless you assume that the Bible is in fact eyewitness evidence. Even then, we have a single book that purports to describe the reaction of a handful of men. It is far easier to invent a reaction in fiction than to resurrect someone, I assume. Moreover, another alternative is that the reaction described is genuine, but that his followers were legitimately hoodwinked; after all, the Romans are said to have posted a guard at the door of the tomb as a result of exactly that concern.
quote: 2) the unlikeliness of his claims to be "successful" in the Greco-Roman world
I'm not sure what you mean by this. At the time, MANY prophets made this sort of claim; certainly many successful religious movements made this kind of argument. The belief that one's founding prophet in some way overcame death is hardly unique to Christianity.
quote:3) and the global impact of the movement he started
There are a number of global religions. Which other ones are also true?
quote: Given this claim, this man should be able to speak as an absolute authority on both moral/spiritual and historical truth.
Why? What about coming back from the dead -- or, more accurately, being SAID to have come back from the dead -- makes a book that claims to speak for you automatically an authority on Truth? I don't actually see how one automatically follows from the other.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
When a scientific "fact" is proven wrong it is called progress, books are rewritten, arguments are formalized, and some people may loose thier jobs.
When a biblical "dogma" is considered to be wrong it is called heresy, people are imprisoned, tortured, executed, wars are fought, people die.
2) Avin, Very nice rebuttal.
You left out 5. Satan placed the coal and its fossils there to tempt man away from God.
The only flaw I see in your reasoning is the following:
5) A claim is made that there was once a man who due to his identification with the creator of all reality, became enlightened. - Subreasoning: Due to various historical evidences including the reaction of his followers, the unlikeliness of his claims to be "successful" in the Post-Roman world, and the global impact of the movement he started, I accept this claim as true.
6) Hence I should become a Muslim.
Similar arguments can be made for Budhism--who's followers affected a much greater part of the world population.
Science was not created to combat religion. It was created as a tool to determine which beliefs are the right ones. Stacking up holy book to argue against holy book only creates destruction, which almost no one believes is in service to God.
You have faith that is admirable. So does the Muslim in Iraq and the Hindu in the mountains of Tibet. How do I, someone who is looking for faith, determine which beliefs are correct? I use what limited abilities God gave me, that of reason and logic.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Similar arguments can be made for Budhism--who's followers affected a much greater part of the world population
How do you figure this? AFAIK Christianity, in its various forms, is the dominant world religion, at about 1/3 of the earth's population. (Out of 6 billion, 1 billion Roman Catholic, 1 billion "other.") Islam is second, with almost 1 billion. Buddhism is further down the list.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is far easier to invent a reaction in fiction than to resurrect someone, I assume.
It also sounds far easier to make up stuff in a science textbook than to turn matter into energy. Does that mean I should reject all those books that claimed matter turns into energy in experiments?
It seems to me that it is not a good idea to reject authoritative sources just because it is easy to lie and because what they are saying seems strange to you.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Huamnkind has repeatedly shown that it is capable of turning matter into energy.
There is only one supposedly "recognized" resurrection, and that class of event has never been repeated. Ever. Unless you want to credit accounts in the "Weekly World News," in articles right next to such classics as "Batboy Escapes Again!" In other words, no valid scientific documentation of what would be an easy thing to document (don't you think?)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When a scientific "fact" is proven wrong it is called progress, books are rewritten, arguments are formalized, and some people may loose thier jobs.
When a biblical "dogma" is considered to be wrong it is called heresy, people are imprisoned, tortured, executed, wars are fought, people die.
Dan, I note the difference in the beginnings of both of thsoe sentences. When a scientific idea is definitively "proven" wrong, then it's ahrd to argue with. But what happens when it is merely "considered" to be wrong, but not yet proven? You get a lot of bitter fighting, that same way you do with religion. If scientists were as likely to hold political power as religious leaders are, then you can bet there'd be some arrests, too.
Everyone hates it when precious dogmas are challenged, be they religious, philisophical, scientific, historical, or political dogmas. The last one there has probably led to more deaths than the rest combined. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have any politics, or that political opinions are inferior to other sorts of opinions Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
This subject seems to me more a more fruitful discussion than the whole Creation/Evolution bit, particularly since as I said, I take that on authority of the resurrection. To respond to your points:
quote:Moreover, another alternative is that the reaction described is genuine, but that his followers were legitimately hoodwinked;
I find this scenario unlikely, particularly given the extent to which they were persecuted despite the fact that prior to the crucifixion, persecution made them flee and scatter by their own admission. Furthermore, the biblical accounts (particularly Acts) describe the actions taken to convince others of the truth of the resurrection "reasoning" and "proving;" not actions that are likely to be convincing if they themselves were duped or if their proofs could easily be countered - such as by the Jews or Romans producing the dead body.
quote:after all, the Romans are said to have posted a guard at the door of the tomb as a result of exactly that concern.
So are you of the opinion that the Romans were beat up by the disciples?
quote:I'm not sure what you mean by this. At the time, MANY prophets made this sort of claim; certainly many successful religious movements made this kind of argument. The belief that one's founding prophet in some way overcame death is hardly unique to Christianity.
I don't mean just the fact of the resurrection itself (although that is part of it), but also the circumstances surrounding it - for instance, the fact that the first witnesses to the resurrection were women, who would not have constituted a reliable witness - and the method of death, that is, crucifixion, which would not often inspire new converts unless it could conceivably be shown to have been a necessity for something as incredible as the resurrection. For instance, see here for a list of some other reasons why Christianity should not have survived in its time. You can certainly bring up arguments in favor of Christianity's survival, but there were many other messianic movements within second Temple Judaism; why should Christianity have survived with the aforementioned "problems" when so many others failed?
quote:There are a number of global religions. Which other ones are also true?
The point of my using this as evidence for Christianity is that its claims are worth (carefully) considering because of this fact, which distinguishes it from other religious movements which failed to have significant reach or influence. Other global religions also worth carefully considering because of their reach do indeed include Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Naturalism, etc. I cannot claim to have studied all of these in depth (Buddhism probably more than others, since I was born in a Buddhist country) but the fact is that atheistic Naturalism seems to be the other most major contender for historical claims, since the others are more "spiritual" and vague about actual history. I'm not too interested in a religion that helps me to live a good life unless I know for certain that that's the best I can get; otherwise, I'm interested in living in a reality that I know to be true.
Dan_Raven:
quote:You have faith that is admirable. So does the Muslim in Iraq and the Hindu in the mountains of Tibet. How do I, someone who is looking for faith, determine which beliefs are correct? I use what limited abilities God gave me, that of reason and logic.
I agree with you completely. I disagree with some of the other Christians in this thread who base their faith primarily on subjective experience, whether they claim it to be personal revelation or a relationship they claim with God. I too have subjective experience that seems to favor Christianity, but the problem with subjective experience is that it is very fickle; I try my best not to live my life based on primarily that experience but on rather what to the best of my knowledge I have found to be true. I too claim a personal relationship with God, but relationships can be draining sometimes and exciting at others, and I would be a poor subject of a deity if I based my faith on such a relationship. I would encourage you to continue to use these abilities to discern the truth about reality and I would welcome further discussion in that venue.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So are you of the opinion that the Romans were beat up by the disciples?
If my only two options were "the guards were bypassed -- either bribed, beaten, misled, etc. -- by the disciples, or even a single disciple acting without the knowledge of the others" and "this guy came back from the dead," I would find the first more likely.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Huamnkind has repeatedly shown that it is capable of turning matter into energy.
Not to me. You're asking me to take your word for it - and the word of a bunch of other people and books, who either claim to have observed it or have heard it from other people who claim to have observed it.
And although I could in theory perform an experiment to show it, in all practicality I lack the resources (and possibly the scientific know-how)to do anything but take your word for it or choose not to.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, that's a good point, and I concede that this is logical in most circumstances, but how much circumstantial evidence does it take to build up a case for an event that otherwise would be considered impossible? When you combine this choice with some of the others that are described above, with yet more that you can probably find in any standard apologetics surrounding the resurrection as a historical event, it begins to build a case. This is sufficient that I feel I have reasonable evidence to accept this extremely unlikely event as likely, and although I will sometimes encounter other circumstantial evidences to the contrary (such as for instance, the disunity of the church today being an obviously poor representative of the intentions of Jesus), I am still convinced that this paradigm is more explanatory for what I can see of history and reality than any alternative I have encountered.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Huamnkind has repeatedly shown that it is capable of turning matter into energy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to me. You're asking me to take your word for it - and the word of a bunch of other people and books, who either claim to have observed it or have heard it from other people who claim to have observed it.
And although I could in theory perform an experiment to show it, in all practicality I lack the resources (and possibly the scientific know-how)to do anything but take your word for it or choose not to.
Clearly this is going to be my most stupid question ever and I must be missing something, but couldn't you, for instance, burn it?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
In burning something, you still have the original matter left. It's just changed its form (such as turning to carbon, or to soot). Atomic energy actually converts some of the matter (some of its mass) into energy, and not into a different physical form. The mass actually "goes away."
But, of course, unless Treso has himself actually seen something burning, then he's not going to take any of our words for it that things can actually be burned. And unless he's actually seen that the earth is, in fact, a sphere, he's just going to have to continue believing that it's a large, flat plate, supported on the back of a very large number of turtles.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, it just seems like less matter because the resulting material is devoid of water (released as vapor) and short carbon dioxide (produced by the fire). If you include these gasses with the resulting ash, you would find they are the same as the original material plus oxygen in different chemical configurations.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not to me. You're asking me to take your word for it - and the word of a bunch of other people and books, who either claim to have observed it or have heard it from other people who claim to have observed it.
And although I could in theory perform an experiment to show it, in all practicality I lack the resources (and possibly the scientific know-how)to do anything but take your word for it or choose not to.
Gee, that is the same way I feel about Paris, France.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, that's a good point, and I concede that this is logical in most circumstances, but how much circumstantial evidence does it take to build up a case for an event that otherwise would be considered impossible? When you combine this choice with some of the others that are described above, with yet more that you can probably find in any standard apologetics surrounding the resurrection as a historical event, it begins to build a case.
Except that it doesn't, because none of the individual pieces of "evidence" are themselves compelling, or even evidence in the traditional sense of the word. I'd be glad to discuss each individual point of contention with you, if you'd like; I'm fairly confident that not one of them actually describes a likely scenario.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) and imbues them with souls.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
