quote:"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church"
I ask you, is this nice? But then again, perhaps Paul doesn't really count. Here is Jesus instructing his followers in how to preach his words:
quote:And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (...) And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. (...) For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
posted
KOM Ill address your points, and clarify some of my previous ones you seemed to have misunderstood at work tomorrow.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QB] Mark disagrees with you on fig trees:
quote:And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
The season has nothing to do with it. The fact remains that that particular fig tree had spent tons of energy and nutrients forming leaves which are of little to no use, instead of fruit which is of many uses. So Jesus elected to use it as an object lesson.
quote:Sure there is physical evidence of Santa Claus's existance. The only problem is just how impossible the delivery method is.
...says the man who believes in people walking on water. And no, 'God did it' is not an explanation.
What has this got to do with anything? Are you implying because I believe conditions could exist that would allow a man to walk on water that therefore anything I might believe in is fancible and irrational? You went off about Santa Clause (who nobody seriously claims is real) and I responded with why physical evidence of the type you ask for is not very effective.
quote: With Christianity there is alittle physical evidence and its supported by VERY explicit explanations.
quote:No, there isn't and it isn't.
At the risk of this sounding childish, "Yeah Huh!"
"Search, Ponder, and Pray" are pretty explicit instructions, and the scriptures are a very large set of books that constitute more then enough physical evidence. The many Prophets that all preport to know of God can also be listed as witnesses. Its not as if the Christian God created the world and then disappeared.
quote:How do you prove some of the conclusions of science to a person born blind, and deaf? Do they have a good reason to doubt that the grass is green? Or that color even exists?
quote:'The colour green exists' is not a conclusion of science, at this time. 'Grass predominantly reflects certain wavelengths of light' is such a conclusion, and I can certainly convince a blind person of that.
How would you go about explaining what a wave length is to a deaf and blind person? Is it really so impossible to agree that to somebody who has yet to experience something, others claiming to have so experienced sounds like rubbish?
quote:Scientific evidence at least the kind you ask for is utterly useless at being the foundation for people's faith. It's been what almost 50 years since the Apollo moon landing and a little over 6% of people polled think it was faked? But we have the physical evidence.
quote:What's your point?
My point is say there was a nuclear holocaust and we lost the physical evidence that man had walked on the moon. Given time is it not reasonable to believe that man might start to doubt or even totally discount that man ever made it into space?
quote:Anything that can be seen, heard or touched eventually just passes into the realms of unbelief. If the gospel was just so overwhelmingly obviously true that it could not be denied, what use would it be? Only the most vile would reject it, just as only the most idiotic reject the fact the world is round.
quote:And this would be a bad thing because...? Moreover, this argument assumes that the gospels are actually true, which is precisely the issue in dispute. Surely you can come up with something better than circular reasoning.
This isn't circular reasoning. Go have a child, and instead of letting him make any choices, make them all for him, and take responsibility for everything required of him. You will find without exception that its a less then effective way to raise a human being.
quote: And further to the evil in the NT:
quote:"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church"
1: Paul on more then one occasion says to the effect "This is my opinion on things, and should not be considered the mind of God."
but even disregarding that
2: Mormons consider that passage to be innaccurate in translation. Joseph Smith stated that God informed him that the original wording changes the word "speak" to "lead." That may be of no consiquence to some, but for my purposes its a very different statement.
As for Jesus:
quote: quote:And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
What is inherintly evil about that? God punishes those who conciously reject the truth?
quote: (...) And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
Please cite where these passages are found so I do not have to look for them myself. TIA. You seem to have this passage backwards. This is Jesus advising his Diciples as to what they can expect to happen to them and their converts as they preach the gospel. The world will hate them for Jesus's sake. Or are you saying its evil for Jesus to preach a gospel that he is aware will cause so much strife and grief within families?
quote: (...) For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
Well, really now.
Where is the evil here? If there is a God and he created us, surely he deserves our loyalty more so then our parents (who he also created).
Somehow I doubt that if this was a scientist saying, "This truth we have uncovered will piss off some people," that you would be telling him "Then you ought to, for the cause of world harmony, keep this discovery to yourself."
Wouldnt suprise me if Galileo and Copernicus had parents who were ashamed of what they were doing.
Maybe you simply misunderstood these passages, I don't see how you can fault Jesus for warning his diciples, in my words, "Expect people to abuse you for preaching the gospel."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Mark disagrees with you on fig trees:
quote:And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
The season has nothing to do with it. The fact remains that that particular fig tree had spent tons of energy and nutrients forming leaves which are of little to no use, instead of fruit which is of many uses. So Jesus elected to use it as an object lesson.
Dude, since when do trees make decisions? And anyway who is Jesus to kill things because he doesn't like what they produce? And the season has everything to do with it. How the devil can it possibly be reasonable to blame a freaking tree for not bearing fruit outside the damn season?
quote:
quote:
quote:Sure there is physical evidence of Santa Claus's existance. The only problem is just how impossible the delivery method is.
...says the man who believes in people walking on water. And no, 'God did it' is not an explanation.
What has this got to do with anything? Are you implying because I believe conditions could exist that would allow a man to walk on water that therefore anything I might believe in is fancible and irrational?
Are you saying that because children believe that conditions might possibly exist that would allow reindeer to deliver umpteen million toys in one night, everything they might believe in is fancible and irrational? The one is no more miraculous than the other. Just what difference do you see between these two things, bearing in mind that Santa has as much right to invoke "It's a miracle" as your god does?
quote:You went off about Santa Claus (who nobody seriously claims is real) and I responded with why physical evidence of the type you ask for is not very effective.
I would suggest you not inform any four-year-olds of this; they bite. But by all means feel free to substitute the Greek or Norse gods, if you feel that's any more dignified.
quote:"Search, Ponder, and Pray" are pretty explicit instructions, and the scriptures are a very large set of books that constitute more then enough physical evidence.
Right, and "The Lord of the Rings" is physical evidence of Middle-Earth. Dude, that's so weak it's not even funny.
quote: The many Prophets that all preport to know of God can also be listed as witnesses.
And no three of them agree on anything; their testimony would be thrown out of any court. Or are you going to be taking Native Americans' origin tales as proof for their gods? If not, why not?
quote:Its not as if the Christian God created the world and then disappeared.
No? Point to it, then.
quote:How would you go about explaining what a wave length is to a deaf and blind person? Is it really so impossible to agree that to somebody who has yet to experience something, others claiming to have so experienced sounds like rubbish?
To answer the first question, I would demonstrate pressure waves on the person's skin, and communicate otherwise with a Braille writer. This is a difficulty of communication, not conception. For the second, you should please note that if I were to claim that grass is red, that would be just as outside the blind person's experience, but it really would be rubbish. In any case, why do you consider it so unreasonable when I ask for evidence? That's what people do when others make claims; they say "Well, why do you think so?" Otherwise you end up believing in men with faces in their bellies, hopping about on one leg. If your evidence is 'I dreamed it', you should expect not to be believed. What is difficult about this?
quote:
quote:What's your point?
My point is say there was a nuclear holocaust and we lost the physical evidence that man had walked on the moon. Given time is it not reasonable to believe that man might start to doubt or even totally discount that man ever made it into space?
Yes. Likewise, the tales of Gilgamesh might be absolutely true, and we've just lost the physical evidence. This is not proof of anything, it's an abdication of your responsibility to follow the best evidence available.
quote:
quote:And this would be a bad thing because...? Moreover, this argument assumes that the gospels are actually true, which is precisely the issue in dispute. Surely you can come up with something better than circular reasoning.
This isn't circular reasoning. Go have a child, and instead of letting him make any choices, make them all for him, and take responsibility for everything required of him. You will find without exception that its a less then effective way to raise a human being.
Yes, but that's not what you said. You said 'only the most vile would reject it'. Well then, what's your problem? The vile would reject it and be cast into the fire, or whatever; that's a choice, isn't it? Surely it's better for the gospels to be rejected only out of vileness, rather than because they are totally unsupported by any evidence, as now. I see where it's good to make your own choices, but to make good choices you have to have information. To return to your analogy of the child, if I told it to avoid getting burned in the kitchen, but did not show it that the stove is the hot part, it would be my fault if it got burned.
quote:Mormons consider that passage to be inaccurate in translation. Joseph Smith stated that God informed him that the original wording changes the word "speak" to "lead." That may be of no consiquence to some, but for my purposes its a very different statement.
That makes it less evil, but not good. Why shouldn't a woman lead? To cut off half the human race's potential is just evil.
quote:What is inherently evil about that? God punishes those who conciously reject the truth?
You are consciously rejecting the truth I've shown you. Should I punish you? And just how are these people to know that it's this particular mad prophet, and not the one down on the next corner ranting about the evil of date trees not bearing fruit out of season, that's the Real Thing?
quote:This is Jesus advising his Disciples as to what they can expect to happen to them and their converts as they preach the gospel.
No, it's Jesus saying that people who don't accept his words must be shunned, in the Amish sense of that term. Read them again:
quote: For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
quote:Where is the evil here? If there is a God and he created us, surely he deserves our loyalty more so then our parents (who he also created).
The next time I see your god comforting a crying child, while its parents look the other way, I will agree that those parents have no more claim on its loyalty. Loyalty, like respect, is a line that travels two ways; there is no evidence that your god has any, yet here is Jesus claiming that it takes precedence, indeed that people should actively hate their parents. That's evil.
quote:Somehow I doubt that if this was a scientist saying, "This truth we have uncovered will piss off some people," that you would be telling him "Then you ought to, for the cause of world harmony, keep this discovery to yourself."
No, but when he begins actively gloating over how many civil wars his discovery is going to cause, I feel well within my rights to consider him a bit of an asshole.
quote:Maybe you simply misunderstood these passages, I don't see how you can fault Jesus for warning his diciples, in my words, "Expect people to abuse you for preaching the gospel."
That's not what he says. He says that brother will rise up against brother. He doesn't say anything about the disciples.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gosh, that's really insightful and constructive. You've made a great contribution to this thread. Pray do continue to enlighten us with your thoughts.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh teh noes! I hurt someone's feelings, and they respond by breaking out the ad homs! Whatever shall I do?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry KOM I just didnt have the energy to type all those <quote> </quote>. I apologize for not promptly responding to your post that you clearly put alot of effort into.
I'm going to try reduce the size of subsequent posts by deleting unneccesary words.
quote:Dude, since when do trees make decisions? And anyway who is Jesus to kill things because he doesn't like what they produce? And the season has everything to do with it. How the devil can it possibly be reasonable to blame a freaking tree for not bearing fruit outside the damn season?
Your completely missing the point. Even if the season was early for figs, Jesus saw the fig tree and how leafy it was, therefore it was rational to assume it was heavy with fruit. It was not, it was much like Pharisees who look so righteous on the outside but once you get into their actual lives you find no fruit. Jesus decided to demonstrate the indignation he had for hypocrisy by cursing the fig tree. Certainly he would have been unable to curse the fig tree if God had disagreed with his decision. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS say killing somebody and saying "If God had wanted to stop me he would have." Jesus (If we are to believe the Bible) used his God given powers to curse the fig, he didnt man handle it in any way. Besides all that, what evidence do you have the plants do NOT make decisions?
quote:I would suggest you not inform any four-year-olds of this; they bite. But by all means feel free to substitute the Greek or Norse gods, if you feel that's any more dignified.
Its even less dignified as those God's were not even beginning to attempt to lay down a code of morals by which men could be happy. Greek/Roman/Norse Gods are nothing more then immortals that for some reason are still subject to all the passions and weaknesses human beings are. Besides fear, we had no reason to emulate their behavior. The Christian God tries to win you over with love, and attempts to make you a better person.
The difference between Jesus Christ and Santa Clause is that one actually claims to provide you with eternal happiness. Santa Claus merely rewards you for good behavior with gifts. Were Santa Clause actually real he would still be insignificant compared to the program Jesus runs.
Jesus' words and teachings are testable. You can emulate him and experience his influence in your life and certainly beyond childhood. Santa Clause ceases to be real the moment your parents decide to let you in on the secret. By your logic, I should believe in Jesus as I have yet to encounter evidence that he does not exist. Jesus thus far has done everything he told me he would if I held my end of the bargain. Santa Clause has ceased to do so.
quote:And no three of them agree on anything; their testimony would be thrown out of any court. Or are you going to be taking Native Americans' origin tales as proof for their gods? If not, why not?
I completely disagree, I think if you took any 3 prophets from the Bible they completely agree. Or you might argue they do not contradict each other. Please don't try to use the Law of Moses as a means to contradict Jesus' teaching. Even a casual reading of the New Testament explains why Jesus' teachings were not along the lines of the law of Moses.
quote:"Its not as if the Christian God created the world and then disappeared.
No? Point to it, then.
Um I've experienced his existance? That does nothing to prove it to you.
quote:To answer the first question, I would demonstrate pressure waves on the person's skin, and communicate otherwise with a Braille writer. This is a difficulty of communication, not conception. For the second, you should please note that if I were to claim that grass is red, that would be just as outside the blind person's experience, but it really would be rubbish. In any case, why do you consider it so unreasonable when I ask for evidence? That's what people do when others make claims; they say "Well, why do you think so?" Otherwise you end up believing in men with faces in their bellies, hopping about on one leg. If your evidence is 'I dreamed it', you should expect not to be believed. What is difficult about this?
You are right it would be rubbish. But why is it so hard to accept. "I studied the docterine, I tested it out in my own life and found it produced the results predicted within the scriptures (Happiness.) I attempted to communicate with God in the fashion described and it worked to my satisfaction. I feel that I have genuinely experienced God's existance. I am confident the more I continue to abide by the docterine and the more I cultivate communication with God I will continue to experience him in greater and more distinct ways. I have yet to experience evidence that this trend will not continue.
quote: Yes. Likewise, the tales of Gilgamesh might be absolutely true, and we've just lost the physical evidence. This is not proof of anything, it's an abdication of your responsibility to follow the best evidence available.
We have not lost the physical evidence of the Bible completely. The writings and words have been preserved for the most part. The people and places to a great degree have been proven to have existed, the more contemporary the more easily proven. Have we yet to find a person or place in the scriptures that we know did not exist? If not we have evidence to at least not disbelieve it until given reason to do so.
Again you state that you have evidence that God does NOT exist. I have yet to see any actual evidence. I've only seen your critiques of my evidence. Or are you stating that God cannot be proven to exist therefore its pointless to prove God's nonexistance?
quote: Yes, but that's not what you said. You said 'only the most vile would reject it'. Well then, what's your problem? The vile would reject it and be cast into the fire, or whatever; that's a choice, isn't it? Surely it's better for the gospels to be rejected only out of vileness, rather than because they are totally unsupported by any evidence, as now. I see where it's good to make your own choices, but to make good choices you have to have information. To return to your analogy of the child, if I told it to avoid getting burned in the kitchen, but did not show it that the stove is the hot part, it would be my fault if it got burned.
You seem to be operating under the premise that for all Christians, there is one place for the good and one place for the bad. Correct me if I am wrong (Though I doubt I need to request that of you) If people are to rewarded EXACLTY as much as they deserve to be, then it makes no sense to have the limits of 2 outcomes. In life are you rewarded with exactly the same reward everytime you do any good and punished in exactly the same manner every time you do ill, with no variation in intensity? I do not think so, why should the afterlife be any different.
I've already told you that I believe the person who knows what they ought to do, but does not stands more condemned then the person who simply knows no better.
That is why its neccesary for God to not take control away from us and run things for us. It would retard our progression as we could learn NOTHING for our selves. Its much like being a passenger in a car, and having no ability to observe our surroundings. Once we reached our destination would we be any more empowered to find our way to that place then if we had never gone at all?
quote: That makes it less evil, but not good. Why shouldn't a woman lead? To cut off half the human race's potential is just evil.
Oh please, surely you are not naive enough to believe that everyone has the exact same capabilities when it comes to all the facets of life. A careful observance of the world demonstrates a strong arguement that not everyone is created equal. Do men rail on God for not giving us the hearing capabilities of a dog? Or do women feel slighted that at least on the average men are created larger in stature then women?
Though I do not know why God does no delegate leadership responsibility equally amongst all the members of the church. I have found that the church operates just fine with that limitation.
Do you believe that if somebody is prevented from ruling over others, that that person suffers because of it? You call it cutting off their potential, I was not aware that one must be able to control others in order to be happy. And even within Christianity it clearly states, "Neither is man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord." Men may hold all the leadership positions, but they do not pretend it makes them BETTER in ANY way.
I doubt you will ever live in a world where everyone is truely equal in all regards. And I do think that is because it is impossible.
quote:You are consciously rejecting the truth I've shown you. Should I punish you? And just how are these people to know that it's this particular mad prophet, and not the one down on the next corner ranting about the evil of date trees not bearing fruit out of season, that's the Real Thing?
What truth am I conciously rejecting? I think the fact I am debating with you leads one to believe that I am not conciously aware of the truthfulness of your words. I can only assume you are not doing me the discourtesy of pretending you actually believe the words you are writing.
Are you seriously suggesting that we can decide the truthfulness of a man's words by hearing a sound byte without any context. You know the Bible says, "By their fruits ye shall know them." That typically indicates seeing the fruit, touching the fruit, eating the fruit, and then observing its effects on yourself after consumption.
From your words it sounds like we ought to judge men (Of the Prophetic Profession) exactly as you have condemned Christians for so doing, but then again you like to lump us all together and then sarcasticaly denounce us for stating that not all Christians actually live their religion.
I'm sure you would find the inteligence to distinguish between a mad scientist and an eccentric genuine one. Prophets are just as easy to distinquish.
quote: The next time I see your god comforting a crying child, while its parents look the other way, I will agree that those parents have no more claim on its loyalty. Loyalty, like respect, is a line that travels two ways; there is no evidence that your god has any, yet here is Jesus claiming that it takes precedence, indeed that people should actively hate their parents. That's evil.
I honestly think we are both reading the same words simply differently. Some of the blame could rest on shoddy translation, but in this instance I think you are honestly misunderstanding Jesus' words.
Jesus never said, "My gospel will never cause contention." There is always contention between good and evil. But there is also contention between those who misunderstand each other. The gospel might ULTIMATELY bring peace to the world, but there has always been opponents of it who attack it for a variety of reasons.
If Gandhi had said, "My words will cause Indian to rise up against Indian, and there will be death and blood spilt because of what I do." Would you have interpreted that comment the same way you have interpreted Jesus's?
Jesus nowhere is saying, "Go on the offensive, root out and destroy those who do not believe!" He simply said, "Be ready for bloodshed, be ready to die for your belief in me." go watch "The Mission" and tell me the Jesuits in that movie were no better then the self described Christian slave traders of Spain and Portugal. Or that the **Spoilers** Cardinal who sold them out was really just as Christian as those priests. Tell me those missionaries were not persecuted by those they tried to proselyte with for their beliefs.
I really do not see where you are getting "Kill and destroy" from Jesus' words in that passage and not, "Expect to be slain for your belief in me." Jesus says MANY times, "The world will hate you for my sake, but be not afraid." His admonishing that you lay down your life for him and not withold it is pretty much in the same vein. He isn't saying go get yourself killed for me. Though quite a few Christians around 300AD made the mistake of seeing that passage in that light, some still do. He is simply saying, "What I offer you is of greater value then your physical body."
As for your statement that until you see God comforting a child while his parents look away, you will not condone respecting God above all others. I can completely agree with that. A child who has yet to know God has no more reason to be more loyal to God then to his parents then you do to be loyal to me.
"Against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things."
If you honestly do not know God, you can't honestly confess his hand in anything now can you?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dude, since when do trees make decisions? And anyway who is Jesus to kill things because he doesn't like what they produce? And the season has everything to do with it. How the devil can it possibly be reasonable to blame a freaking tree for not bearing fruit outside the damn season?
You're completely missing the point. Even if the season was early for figs, Jesus saw the fig tree and how leafy it was, therefore it was rational to assume it was heavy with fruit. It was not, it was much like Pharisees who look so righteous on the outside but once you get into their actual lives you find no fruit. Jesus decided to demonstrate the indignation he had for hypocrisy by cursing the fig tree. Certainly he would have been unable to curse the fig tree if God had disagreed with his decision.
So what? He can dig it up with his fingernails for all I care. The point is that the fig tree had done him no harm, and yet he decided to take out his frustration with the Pharisees on it. The tree is under no obligation to be helpful to him. Or what would you say of someone who wandered about the countryside, killing people whenever they did not give him water or food?
quote:
quote:I would suggest you not inform any four-year-olds of this; they bite. But by all means feel free to substitute the Greek or Norse gods, if you feel that's any more dignified.
Its even less dignified as those Gods were not even beginning to attempt to lay down a code of morals by which men could be happy. Greek/Roman/Norse Gods are nothing more then immortals that for some reason are still subject to all the passions and weaknesses human beings are. Besides fear, we had no reason to emulate their behavior. The Christian God tries to win you over with love, and attempts to make you a better person.
Right-ho. May I once again direct you to the words of Jesus?
quote:Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Is this love and kindness? Looks remarkably like a threat to me. Not to mention all that wailing and gnashing of teeth that occurs elsewhere in the sermons.
But apart from that, 'dignified' was perhaps a badly chosen word. My intent was to point out that there are other gods that people really have made claims of truth for, unlike the case of Santa Claus. So your objection that "nobody really claims truth for Santa Claus" is not relevant; there are plenty of other gods you can substitute where that's not true. But Santa is a convenient one for the argument since we are both quite familiar with the mythos.
quote:The difference between Jesus Christ and Santa Claus is that one actually claims to provide you with eternal happiness. Santa Claus merely rewards you for good behavior with gifts. Were Santa Claus actually real he would still be insignificant compared to the program Jesus runs.
I disagree, but that's not relevant anyway. We were not discussing which one is morally better. We were discussing whether the evidence for the existence of the one is better than that for the other. Let me recap our discussion as I understand it : You agreed, if I understood you, that the physical evidence for Santa Claus is better than that for Jesus; you objected, however, that the alleged delivery method is extremely implausible. I pointed out that the alleged achievements of Jesus are equally implausible. The believers in the one have as much right to appeal to "It's a miracle" as believers in the other. Again : What do you think is the difference between feeding five thousand people on two loaves of bread, and delivering umpteen million presents in one night?
quote:Jesus' words and teachings are testable. You can emulate him and experience his influence in your life and certainly beyond childhood. Santa Claus ceases to be real the moment your parents decide to let you in on the secret. By your logic, I should believe in Jesus as I have yet to encounter evidence that he does not exist. Jesus thus far has done everything he told me he would if I held my end of the bargain. Santa Claus has ceased to do so.
I think it would be useful to separate the words from the divinity. After all, people have likewise claimed great happiness from becoming Scientologists and getting rid of their body thetans; I trust you do not think this is proof of Hubbard's cosmology. So we can agree (for the sake of the argument; I'm not necessarily conceding the general truth of this) that living by the principles of Jesus's teachings makes for happier people, without this being proof of his genuine divinity. Unless, that is, you want to suggest something that makes your church different from Scientology.
quote:
quote:And no three of them agree on anything; their testimony would be thrown out of any court. Or are you going to be taking Native Americans' origin tales as proof for their gods? If not, why not?
I completely disagree, I think if you took any 3 prophets from the Bible they completely agree. Or you might argue they do not contradict each other. Please don't try to use the Law of Moses as a means to contradict Jesus' teaching. Even a casual reading of the New Testament explains why Jesus' teachings were not along the lines of the law of Moses.
From the Bible, you might have a point, except of course that all the prophets after the first one were aware of their predecessors' work, so they're hardly independent. But I was actually thinking of all the ones that do not appear in the Bible, like Mohammed and Hubbard.
quote:You are right it would be rubbish. But why is it so hard to accept. "I studied the docterine, I tested it out in my own life and found it produced the results predicted within the scriptures (Happiness.) (...)
Scientologists again.
quote:We have not lost the physical evidence of the Bible completely. The writings and words have been preserved for the most part. The people and places to a great degree have been proven to have existed, the more contemporary the more easily proven. Have we yet to find a person or place in the scriptures that we know did not exist? If not we have evidence to at least not disbelieve it until given reason to do so.
In the first place, evidence of the existence of Jesus is not evidence of his divinity; or perhaps you believe that Odin really could do magic? In the second place, just what is your proof for the existence of a historical Jesus apart from the Bible? And incidentally, you'd think such a pivotal rabble-rouser would appear in Roman records of the time. In the third place, "writings and words" are physical evidence of nothing except a writer; hence my remark about the Lord of the Rings.
quote:Again you state that you have evidence that God does NOT exist. I have yet to see any actual evidence. I've only seen your critiques of my evidence. Or are you stating that God cannot be proven to exist therefore its pointless to prove God's nonexistance?
I don't think I made any such statement. However, pray let me see you disprove the existence of Santa Claus. No? Then is it reasonable to believe in him?
quote:
quote:Yes, but that's not what you said. You said 'only the most vile would reject it'. Well then, what's your problem? The vile would reject it and be cast into the fire, or whatever; that's a choice, isn't it? Surely it's better for the gospels to be rejected only out of vileness, rather than because they are totally unsupported by any evidence, as now. I see where it's good to make your own choices, but to make good choices you have to have information. To return to your analogy of the child, if I told it to avoid getting burned in the kitchen, but did not show it that the stove is the hot part, it would be my fault if it got burned.
You seem to be operating under the premise that for all Christians, there is one place for the good and one place for the bad. Correct me if I am wrong (Though I doubt I need to request that of you) If people are to rewarded EXACLTY as much as they deserve to be, then it makes no sense to have the limits of 2 outcomes. In life are you rewarded with exactly the same reward everytime you do any good and punished in exactly the same manner every time you do ill, with no variation in intensity? I do not think so, why should the afterlife be any different.
I've already told you that I believe the person who knows what they ought to do, but does not stands more condemned then the person who simply knows no better.
That is why its neccesary for God to not take control away from us and run things for us. It would retard our progression as we could learn NOTHING for our selves. Its much like being a passenger in a car, and having no ability to observe our surroundings. Once we reached our destination would we be any more empowered to find our way to that place then if we had never gone at all?
You've lost me; I totally do not see the connection between your remarks and mine. One more time : If the completely vile have the ability to reject the gospels, and do so, then how is your god taking control of our lives?
quote:Oh please, surely you are not naive enough to believe that everyone has the exact same capabilities when it comes to all the facets of life. A careful observation of the world demonstrates a strong arguement that not everyone is created equal. Do men rail on God for not giving us the hearing capabilities of a dog? Or do women feel slighted that at least on the average men are created larger in stature then women?
A very similar argument was made, at one point, to keep women out of universities. Do you approve of that also?
quote:Though I do not know why God does no delegate leadership responsibility equally amongst all the members of the church. I have found that the church operates just fine with that limitation.
Not relevant. The question was about rights, not how smoothly the church can be administrated. Factories ran quite nicely before women were allowed to work in them; does that make such discrimination right?
quote:Do you believe that if somebody is prevented from ruling over others, that that person suffers because of it?
Let me put the question to you differently. I trust you'll agree that there are some bishoprics (is that the word for your smallest unit?) which are badly led. Do you really think that every woman in such a bishopric is so bad at leadership that even a bad bishop is better, purely because he is male?
quote:I doubt you will ever live in a world where everyone is truly equal in all regards. And I do think that is because it is impossible.
True. But I do think one might strive for a world where everybody has the same rights.
[/QUOTE]What truth am I conciously rejecting? I think the fact I am debating with you leads one to believe that I am not conciously aware of the truthfulness of your words.[/quote]
Precisely my point. Jesus, in the passage I quoted, does not say anything about people consciously rejecting anything. He says that cities will be punished for not believing the gospel, period. Now if the cities are not consciously aware of the truth of those words, then how is it fair to punish them?
I'll respond to the rest later.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all the years I've been at hatrack, I've never started a thread that went on to anything close to 15 pages. Heck, I'm generally pleased if a thread I start gets more than 5 or 10 posts in it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Gandhi had said, "My words will cause Indian to rise up against Indian, and there will be death and blood spilt because of what I do." Would you have interpreted that comment the same way you have interpreted Jesus's?
Possibly we are focusing on slightly different parts of the passage I quoted. Once again :
quote:He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
Me, me, me, that's all I'm hearing from this guy.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is a tree a person, and I missed it somewhere? I sure hope not, I've affronted horribly with toothpicks many times in the past.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not offended, KoM. I'm not offended by David Blaine or Jenna Jameson either. I can only be thankful Hatrack doesn't allow pictures. There must be something very sad about you to have such a need for attention.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In passing across people who are seated, always face the stage and press as close to the backs of the seats you are facing as you can. Remember also not to drag anything across the heads of those sitting in front of you. At the moving pictures, especially when it is dark and difficult to see, a coat on an arm passing behind a chair can literally devastate the hair-dressing of a lady occupying it. 24 If you are obliged to cross in front of some one who gets up to let you pass, say “Thank you,” or “Thank you very much” or “I am very sorry.” Do not say “Pardon me!” or “Beg pardon!” Though you can say “I beg your pardon.” That, however, would be more properly the expression to use if you brushed your coat over their heads, or spilled water over them, or did something to them for which you should actually beg their pardon. But “Beg pardon,” which is an abbreviation, is one of the phrases never said in best society.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm not offended, KoM. I'm not offended by David Blaine or Jenna Jameson either. I can only be thankful Hatrack doesn't allow pictures. There must be something very sad about you to have such a need for attention.
Says the woman who is apparently posting in this thread for absolutely no purpose other than pointing out my perceived character flaws. This is a discussion board. We discuss things on it. If that's attention seeking, oh well, colour me an attention whore.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Why are you arguing with King of Men about whether spiritual truth is real, Blackblade?
Because just because I believe the greatest truth is spirit truth does not mean I think physical truth is absolutely unnecessary.
Ill say this up front, this was discussed before but Ill say it again. If you could in an undeniable manner disprove ALL of the physical evidence that Christianity preports to have (an incredible feat IMO) I would willingly denounce religion, though I don't know how I would believe anything spiritual ever again.
KOM: I'm sorry that I have to request more patience on your part, if I had focused on it I could have a written response to your remarks but I got distracted in other threads and with my work. Ill see what I can get done in the meantime. Again my apologies.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: So what? He can dig it up with his fingernails for all I care. The point is that the fig tree had done him no harm, and yet he decided to take out his frustration with the Pharisees on it. The tree is under no obligation to be helpful to him. Or what would you say of someone who wandered about the countryside, killing people whenever they did not give him water or food?
The fig tree was NOT fulfilling "the measure of its creation." or its purpose. If you were hurt and needed a doctor and instead the janitor at the hospital simply put on the garb of a doctor, equipped a stethoscope and then told you he could assist you with what you needed would you not condemn him for trying to deceive you?
Figs are designed to bear fruit, this one wasted its efforts on leaves. Perhaps you disagree with the method Jesus used, but do you disagree with the principle he was teaching?
quote: Right-ho. May I once again direct you to the words of Jesus? "Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."
What's your point? That Jesus can accurately state how God will judge those who willfully rebel against the truth, and that makes him a fear monger? He certainly did not instruct his apostles to go around saying, "Convert or you will get the Sodom/Gommorah treatment!" He is merely making the observation that those who choose unsound docterine and evil will reap their reward.
Jesus never once said, "It is better to be feared then loved." If you counted the number of times Jesus said, "Fear not" and the number of times he said, "Start Fearing" you will find a pretty wide gap.
quote:n the first place, evidence of the existence of Jesus is not evidence of his divinity; or perhaps you believe that Odin really could do magic? In the second place, just what is your proof for the existence of a historical Jesus apart from the Bible? And incidentally, you'd think such a pivotal rabble-rouser would appear in Roman records of the time. In the third place, "writings and words" are physical evidence of nothing except a writer; hence my remark about the Lord of the Rings.
1: Right but you agree that if Jesus was actually divine then He would be described as such in his literature. Its unlikely that if Jesus actually PERFORMED the miracles he did that the literature about him would completely and willfully avoid saying as much.
I can agree with you that were Jesus to have not actually done anything miraculous its still a possibility that literature written about him would add ficticious elements to his life.
Do you see any Jewish/Roman historians as declaring that Jesus did not exist?
What proof do you have that Mohammed and Prince Siddhartha existed? Or am I wrong in assuming you believe the men actually existed?
3: Agreed, again looking at this in reverse, If Jesus said and did what he did, there would be writers. Writings at least prove the possibility of Christ being real.
quote: I disagree, but that's not relevant anyway. We were not discussing which one is morally better. We were discussing whether the evidence for the existence of the one is better than that for the other. Let me recap our discussion as I understand it : You agreed, if I understood you, that the physical evidence for Santa Claus is better than that for Jesus; you objected, however, that the alleged delivery method is extremely implausible. I pointed out that the alleged achievements of Jesus are equally implausible. The believers in the one have as much right to appeal to "It's a miracle" as believers in the other. Again : What do you think is the difference between feeding five thousand people on two loaves of bread, and delivering umpteen million presents in one night?
I think the physical evidence of Jesus' existance outweighs the existance of Santa Claus. I'm sorry if I was not ambiguous about that earlier. There are no texts of the sayings of Santa Clause that can to a reasonable extent proof their antiquity. No rational people seriously claims to have seen Saint Nick or even communicate with him. The locations within the myth of Santa Clause can to NO degree be demonstrated as true. His story is completely devoid of any realism.
Again my apologies Ill have to get to your other comments later. Beg Pardon.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fig tree was NOT fulfilling "the measure of its creation." or its purpose.
I have to admit that, of all the less ambiguous object lessons Jesus could have chosen, picking on a fig tree out of season seems rather petty. I find it hard to believe that the outskirts of Jerusalem contained no clearer examples of things not fulfilling their purpose than something which, were it the proper season for figs, would be bearing figs.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Figs are designed to bear fruit, this one wasted its efforts on leaves. Perhaps you disagree with the method Jesus used, but do you disagree with the principle he was teaching?
Indeed I do. Humans are designed to breed more humans. Should we then kill off the ones who don't?
quote:He is merely making the observation that those who choose unsound doctrine and evil will reap their reward.
Yeah, gosh, imagine that. People might actually choose not to listen to some madman from the desert. How awful. They obviously deserve to burn in hell for all of eternity.
quote:Right but you agree that if Jesus was actually divine then He would be described as such in his literature. Its unlikely that if Jesus actually PERFORMED the miracles he did that the literature about him would completely and willfully avoid saying as much.
Obviously, but so what? You could write just the same passage, substituting 'Odin' for 'Jesus', and it would make just as much sense and be just as utterly unconvincing.
quote:Do you see any Jewish/Roman historians as declaring that Jesus did not exist?
I don't see them declaring that Santa doesn't exist, either, but I would hardly choose to present this as evidence for my religion, if I could possibly avoid it.
quote:What proof do you have that Mohammed and Prince Siddhartha existed? Or am I wrong in assuming you believe the men actually existed?
I'm not sure about Siddhartha, as I don't know much about Indian history of the period. Mohammad, on the other hand, is attested by the people he fought against, as for example here. Even so, I'm not inclined to be dogmatic about his existence; it was a pretty confused period, and there are always a bunch of prophets about. Any number of men might have fitted the description. You should note that this document is contemporary to Mohammad; Josephus is writing 50 years after Christ's death, and may well be reporting 'what Christians believe' rather than what he regards as historical fact.
quote:Agreed, again looking at this in reverse, If Jesus said and did what he did, there would be writers. Writings at least prove the possibility of Christ being real.
Quite so; likewise, Tolkien's writings at least prove the possibility of Gandalf being real. But personally, I should not care to advance this as an argument for the most central belief in my life. Your mileage may differ.
quote:I think the physical evidence of Jesus' existance outweighs the existance of Santa Claus. I'm sorry if I was not ambiguous about that earlier. There are no texts of the sayings of Santa Clause that can to a reasonable extent proof their antiquity. No rational people seriously claims to have seen Saint Nick or even communicate with him. The locations within the myth of Santa Clause can to NO degree be demonstrated as true. His story is completely devoid of any realism.
Ah yes, no 'rational' people. Well, I could just as well claim that no 'rational' people seriously claim to have experienced communion with Jesus, and by defining rational as atheist, I'd be quite right. Don't you see that this is just the argument which you dismiss when I make it? As for realism, just how 'realistic' is it for a man to rise from the dead, to walk on water, to feed five thousand on two loaves and some fish? Please apply the same standards to both myths.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Indeed I do. Humans are designed to breed more humans. Should we then kill off the ones who don't?
Again your words not Christs. Don't intentionally and disingenuously present Christian docterine as so absolutist. By that logic God should punish himself for creating human beings who cannot reproduce.
quote: Yeah, gosh, imagine that. People might actually choose not to listen to some madman from the desert. How awful. They obviously deserve to burn in hell for all of eternity.
He was not a mad man from the desert KOM, he was a wonderful man who did great things. Madmen typically do not create long lasting systems of belief. If we are to believe the accounts of his words Jesus did not run around like a madman spounting of incoherent babble. He said deep profound things that rocked peoples minds. Certainly he would not have been so systematically persecuted and ultimately executed if he his ideas had not taken root so effectively.
Again you seem to be ignoring the fact that there is a difference between rejecting the truth and rejecting a messenger who does a bad job of presenting his material.
Even if you ultimately know the truth and decide God just is not the guy for you, but then again evil does not suit you either there is a reasonably designed place for you. Quite invoking the limited heaven or hell destination as a way of making my arguements seem unsound, I've repeatedly decried putting people in 2 big groups.
As for proof of his existance, Josephus is typically trusted as impartial, he was quite capable of removing his own beliefs from the way things were.
The study is bent on disproving Jesus existance, but its more or less impartial in presentation. The fact that historians note there were Christians in Asia Minor at the time soon after Jesus' alleged life show that at least the religion formed at the same time the Bible says it did. Its reasonable to believe that if Christianity became big enough to take scholarly notice at around 50AD that Jesus actually lived from 0-33AD. The Bible itself notes that Christianity did not really leave Jerusalem until after Jesus died, Jesus did not proselyte outside the Jewish state until after his death/ressurection.
I think its harder to prove realistically that Jesus was a fabrication and never really existed then it is that He actually existed. I'm saying nothing of the truthfulness of his teachings, merely that its rational to believe Jesus was a living breathing individual.
quote: Quite so; likewise, Tolkien's writings at least prove the possibility of Gandalf being real. But personally, I should not care to advance this as an argument for the most central belief in my life. Your mileage may differ.
I merely present the arguement as a way to demonstrate that its not unreasonable to accept the POSSIBILITY of the existance of Jesus. Tolkien openly admits his story is a mythology. The Bible makes no such claim, in fact its the opposite. Whether or not the writers of the Bible were accurate in their portrayal of Jesus is not my purpose here. I am merely disagreeing with your assertion that they are completely unreliable as historians and that all they said including persons/places must be rejected.
quote: Ah yes, no 'rational' people. Well, I could just as well claim that no 'rational' people seriously claim to have experienced communion with Jesus, and by defining rational as atheist, I'd be quite right. Don't you see that this is just the argument which you dismiss when I make it? As for realism, just how 'realistic' is it for a man to rise from the dead, to walk on water, to feed five thousand on two loaves and some fish? Please apply the same standards to both myths.
Dont bring straw men into this arguement. At least provide me with a credible report of a rational person who goes around trying to persuade people of the actuality of Santa Claus.
Its completely unrealistic for a, "man" do have done all the things Jesus did. Thats why people believe he was more then a mere man KOM. Your speaking with the assumption that I agree with you that Jesus was just another man. In light of my previous comments I would almost be happy if you admited the likelihood of Jesus having even been born. I'd be ecstatic if you agreed its likely Jesus even said the things he did.
ok let me get to your comments from your previous post.
quote: Oh please, surely you are not naive enough to believe that everyone has the exact same capabilities when it comes to all the facets of life. A careful observation of the world demonstrates a strong arguement that not everyone is created equal. Do men rail on God for not giving us the hearing capabilities of a dog? Or do women feel slighted that at least on the average men are created larger in stature then women?
A very similar argument was made, at one point, to keep women out of universities. Do you approve of that also?
Allowing somebody to get an education is not the same thing as granting somebody the priviledge of leading others. Ill be candid KOM, I ask that you give me the courtesy of avoiding this particular point. I personally do not understand God's reasoning for doing things this way, and though I fully believe that one day I will understand it, I have to accept it for the present time.
If you absolutely insist on pressing this point I will attempt to get my thoughts together on the subject as best I can, I only ask that you be civil and not try to construe my remarks as some sort of chauvanistic elitist agenda. I do hope that we can avoid this particular topic.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Aw, BlackBlade, don't feed the troll.
To be honest, I don't find KoM's questions and criticisms trollish here (or attention-seeking, for that matter). Abrasive, yes, sometimes. I've also found BlackBlade's attempts at answering to be very gentle and genuine.
This is an interesting conversation that I very much hope will continue.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel that our discussion has got a little unmanageable; if you agree, I would like to pursue one thread at a time, and leave the others for later consideration. As I see it, we are having four different discussions at the same time :
- The fig tree and "fulfilling one's purpose" - Fear and threats in the New Testament - The historicity and divinity of Jesus and Santa - The position of women
I feel that the most important of these is the discussion about the divinity of Jesus. The others are side threads that have cropped up accidentally in the course of that discussion, although they are quite interesting in their own right; we can certainly return to them later.
quote:I think its harder to prove realistically that Jesus was a fabrication and never really existed then it is that He actually existed. I'm saying nothing of the truthfulness of his teachings, merely that its rational to believe Jesus was a living breathing individual.
I know of several scholars who disagree; I'm not inclined, however, to be dogmatic on the matter. Jesus may have existed, or not; I don't care. Any given time period (ours not excepted) will always have any number of self-proclaimed prophets wandering about, some of them teaching quite nice bits of morality. The important question is whether he was correct or not.
quote:Dont bring straw men into this arguement. At least provide me with a credible report of a rational person who goes around trying to persuade people of the actuality of Santa Claus.
I myself did so, when I was ten; indeed I went to some lengths to persuade my younger sister that Santa was real. And when I was younger, I believed it myself, and on much better evidence than yours, at that : To wit, presents! Porridge set out for Santa, eaten! The sound of sleigh bells, just as the presents come rushing down the chimney! (My mother has a gift for drama.)
Perhaps my point would be clearer if I substitute Scientology for Santa-Claus-ism. And incidentally, I trust you do not doubt that L Ron Hubbard was a living, breathing person?
quote:It's completely unrealistic for a, "man" do have done all the things Jesus did. Thats why people believe he was more then a mere man KOM.
If I can return to Santa for a moment, it is likewise unrealistic for a man to do all he does, and that's why people believe he is more than a man. Don't you see that everything you say about Jesus applies exactly as well to Santa? Your only real objection is that no adult genuinely believes in Santa, and while I can't argue with that, I don't think it is relevant. The point is that if anyone did, they would have just as much (or as little) justification for doing so, as you do for believing in Jesus. I have yet to see you argue otherwise. But, if you really feel that this is a sticking point, please switch the argument over to Scientology; that will do just as well.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I feel that our discussion has got a little unmanageable; if you agree, I would like to pursue one thread at a time, and leave the others for later consideration. As I see it, we are having four different discussions at the same time :
- The fig tree and "fulfilling one's purpose" - Fear and threats in the New Testament - The historicity and divinity of Jesus and Santa - The position of women
I feel that the most important of these is the discussion about the divinity of Jesus. The others are side threads that have cropped up accidentally in the course of that discussion, although they are quite interesting in their own right; we can certainly return to them later.
Agreed Ill try to stick to the divinity issue then for now. I wasn't sure how to simplify this discussion as I can be more long winded then I mean to be, thanks for doing it for me.
I think we have a paradox at the core of this arguement. You want Christ, his teachings, and his miracles to be proveable through physical means. Santa provides physical evidence such as presents, porridge eaten (foolish norseman everyone knows cookies are santa's prefered snack), etc. I've said before that a religion based on physical evidence that cannot be refuted loses an indispensable part of its usefulness.
According to Christianity (at least within my sect) God is not interested in simply sending people to heaven or to hell. He is interested in improving every individual to the point that they are like Him. I have said before that person who follows the gospel because they simply have had no reason to disbelieve it does not have a very solid base for conviction. Such a person will fold like a stack of cards when adversity challenges his beliefs.
Its very much like school. It would be like teachers not teaching but sitting the exams for each student. The students are no better off even though they have every reason to believe their teachers are doing their work properly.
Religion works much the same way. You start off with some basic assumptions (they could be true, they might not be.) At the very basic level you at least HOPE they are true.
Could you at least hope KOM that there is order behind everything in the universe, and that everything within the universe has an express purpose with limitless potential? If there was a God that could explain his actions and anything you could possibly wish to know to your satisfaction, would you find that attractive?
If so thats the start of gaining evidence that such beliefs are actually true and not fansible notions.
If you start to live the docterine and you find it makes you a better person, thats one reason to at least trust it might be true. If you find your suplications to this supposed God are starting to yield actual results you can perceive then you have yet more evidence that you are right to continue experimenting.
You incorporate more and more of the docterine as you reap greater and greater certainty of their value. You ask for strength to overcome a weakness and you find it, you ask for the solution to a problem and suddenly the solution forms in your mind. You continue on in this way. You start to recognize thoughts that you yourself form, and thoughts that seem to be sent to you.
You find that when you DONT follow the docterines you have studied that these results do not continue. You have more difficulty functioning as you did before when you did not behave as you have been experimenting.
As you continue your experiment you start asking for God to convince you to your satisfaction that all these things you hope are true are in fact true. God to your satisfaction in a way personal to you convinces you of his existance. Its enough to persuade you, but not enought to simply convince others. Its left to them to try the experiment out for themselves.
You continue on for you have yet to find reason to disbelieve what you have so far experienced. You encounter challenges to your beliefs or greater and greater intensity, and each time as you hold to what you have your belief is intensified through greater and greater manifestations of God's power.
Ultimately one day through strong perserverance you literally see God and converse with him, and you begin to learn directly from him.
Now assuming all I said ACTUALLY happened to an individual, can you see why its rational for Him/Her to believe in God, but that that does NOTHING to persuade others? All that individual can do is by their example show others the virtues they have found, and encourage others to try them out for themselves? The person who has tried the experiment is certainly a much more Godlike person then if they had simply had God appear to them from the get go and simply lived their lives for them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, what you have described is exactly the method I would use to brainwash someone into believing something false and into becoming emotionally invested in that belief.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've said before that a religion based on physical evidence that cannot be refuted loses an indispensable part of its usefulness.
And I have disagreed, though this is a thread of our argument that seems to have gotten lost on the previous page. Also, you are contradicting yourself, for you have repeatedly argued that there really is physical evidence for the existence and divinity of Jesus. You can't have it both ways.
Further, you have not provided a useful means of distinguishing between your faith and Scientology, which makes exactly the same claims of "you'll be a better person" and "try it and see for yourself". How do you know that Scientology would not work even better for you? It is hardly surprising that a change in mental habits should bring about a change in outlook; but a change directed differently - Ron Hubbard instead of Joseph Smith, say - might have produced a stronger effect. Until you've tried all the possible variations, how can you make a decision on which one works best? Or will you settle for merely good enough? At some point, you are going to have to look to the objective evidence to settle the question.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Religion works much the same way. You start off with some basic assumptions (they could be true, they might not be.) At the very basic level you at least HOPE they are true.
This is precisely and exactly the wrong way to go about establishing truth. Your hopes do not have any impact on what the universe is really like, nor should you allow them to influence what you believe. That way madness lies.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've said before that a religion based on physical evidence that cannot be refuted loses an indispensable part of its usefulness.
And I have disagreed, though this is a thread of our argument that seems to have gotten lost on the previous page. Also, you are contradicting yourself, for you have repeatedly argued that there really is physical evidence for the existence and divinity of Jesus. You can't have it both ways.
Further, you have not provided a useful means of distinguishing between your faith and Scientology, which makes exactly the same claims of "you'll be a better person" and "try it and see for yourself". How do you know that Scientology would not work even better for you? It is hardly surprising that a change in mental habits should bring about a change in outlook; but a change directed differently - Ron Hubbard instead of Joseph Smith, say - might have produced a stronger effect. Until you've tried all the possible variations, how can you make a decision on which one works best? Or will you settle for merely good enough? At some point, you are going to have to look to the objective evidence to settle the question.
I do not think its as difficult as you are making it sound.
I have argued that for the uninitiated, or the unaquainted there is not much physical evidence of the magnitude you have requested. You don't get to see God with your own eyes until you've demonstrated that you are willing to follow him even if you can't see Him. To do it any other day makes for very weak conversion.
Are you disagreeing that if the process I laid out happened to the individual that they would still be irrational to believe in God?
Tom: I personally do not know the specifics as to how to brainwash somebody or to condition them. But I imagine it boarders more along the lines of (even if you dont like it keep doing it until it feels right) and not (do it and decide for yourself how it feels to you.)
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you [asserting] that if the process I laid out happened to the individual, they would still be irrational to believe in God?
Yes. Or are you going to maintain that it is rational to believe in Scientology?
(I took the liberty of changing your sentence so it says what I think you meant it to say. If you really meant what it actually said, please say so.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Religion works much the same way. You start off with some basic assumptions (they could be true, they might not be.) At the very basic level you at least HOPE they are true.
This is precisely and exactly the wrong way to go about establishing truth. Your hopes do not have any impact on what the universe is really like, nor should you allow them to influence what you believe. That way madness lies.
Sorry for double posting. But would you apply the same thing to a scientist in that you would say "Start off with no hypothesis, or estimates, just stare at the data until it tells you something?"
Most people form a hypothesis with the hope they have interpreted the data correctly.
There is nothing mad about hoping something is true and then setting out to prove it. A rational mind is perfectly willing to accept a negative answer to his hopes. I hoped to be a paleontologist one day, and I read tons of literature on the subject and thought I was doing really well. When I started to encounter the reality of paleontology I realized that I was wrong in that I thought I was well suited for it.
You can just as easily try out a religion and decide for yourself it if does or does not perform as advertised.
If you don't feel you should be required to expend the effort to try out multiple religious docterines don't feel entitled to call them all false and do so on a logical basis.
You expect scientists to map out the human genome but you can't expect yourself to seriously consider more then one religion?
As for me, it does not apply the way you are saying. Thus far I am still finding more and more truth within my religion, I have not hit some sort of roof. If I find more truth in another religion Ill embrace it, if I find my religion cannot answer a question that is important but another religion does I have to personally examine the ramifications of that development.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you [asserting] that if the process I laid out happened to the individual, they would still be irrational to believe in God?
Yes. Or are you going to maintain that it is rational to believe in Scientology?
(I took the liberty of changing your sentence so it says what I think you meant it to say. If you really meant what it actually said, please say so.)
I've yet to experiment with the tenants of scientology. Ill likely look into it at some point or other purely because I don't like being ignorant of something as big as scientology.
Until a hypothesis is demonstratably proven wrong do you fault scientists for believing in it? Right now most people accept evolution as true as nobody has been able to show why its false. If that day ever comes will you think it was stupid that all the evolutionists tried to prove it true?
Will you accuse them of being irrational, or worse traversing the road to madness? Do you disagree that many evolutionists probably HOPE evolution is true as it explains so many things about our earth?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're not double posting, I got there first. Apart from that, your analogy of the scientist just doesn't fit. Scientists solve very specific problems. They certainly do not build up a huge hypothesis on mere hope, and then go about gathering evidence for it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Until a hypothesis is demonstratably proven wrong do you fault scientists for believing in it?
I have a hypothesis that there is a copper teapot in orbit around Mars. You have yet to prove this demonstrably false. Do you fault me for believing in it?
quote:Right now most people accept evolution as true as nobody has been able to show why its false. If that day ever comes will you think it was stupid that all the evolutionists tried to prove it true?
False analogy; evolution has a lot of publicly accessible evidence in its favour, your religion doesn't. And, in fact, you have stated that it would be less effective if it did.
quote:Will you accuse them of being irrational, or worse traversing the road to madness?
No, but as I mentioned, they have a lot of actual, physical evidence and chains of reasoning set out in a form anyone can follow, and most people do. What have you got?
quote:Do you disagree that many evolutionists probably HOPE evolution is true as it explains so many things about our earth?
I do, actually. I don't think 'hope' is a useful descriptor here; it just doesn't match up with the internal state of scientists.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scientists also have thousands of years of work to go off of. You don't need to think about "What constitutes a fact?" so much as the first scientist worked that one out.
Do you honestly think scientists don't HOPE their explanation of the facts turns out to be true so they gain whatever benefit there is to be gleaned by such a success?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have a hypothesis that there is a copper teapot in orbit around Mars. You have yet to prove this demonstrably false. Do you fault me for believing in it?
What lead you to this hypothesis?
quote: False analogy; evolution has a lot of publicly accessible evidence in its favour, your religion doesn't. And, in fact, you have stated that it would be less effective if it did.
It does now, do you think before we had fossil records it would have been possible to effectively demonstrate the truthfulness of evolution? The analogy still stands. I said physical evidence would be less effective to the unaquainted. Its very useful to those who have demonstrated a willingness to listen.
quote: No, but as I mentioned, they have a lot of actual, physical evidence and chains of reasoning set out in a form anyone can follow, and most people do. What have you got?
Very glad you could concede this point. My own experiences have convinced me thus far that I am on the right track, thats all I've got.
quote: I do, actually. I don't think 'hope' is a useful descriptor here; it just doesn't match up with the internal state of scientists.
We will have to disagree then. I think they do hope. Scientists (from my perspective) are also uplifted by another missing piece of the puzzle being revealed, as it empowers their ability to probe even deeper. Do you think scientists are more similar to computers and they care nothing for success or failure, just as long as they can continue to work?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why, I started out with the hope that it was true, and as I tried believing in it, it came to me that a belief in the teapot made me a happier and better person. How else could one possibly arrive at beliefs?
quote:It does now, do you think before we had fossil records it would have been possible to effectively demonstrate the truthfulness of evolution?
I think you might have been able to, through such things as genetics (at the Gregor Mendel level, of course, not modern DNA), population dynamics, and the observed effects of breeding. But if you could not, then I would not consider it rational to believe in evolution; thus, I don't quite understand your point.
quote:The analogy still stands. I said physical evidence would be less effective to the unaquainted. Its very useful to those who have demonstrated a willingness to listen.
Eh, what? Evidence is evidence. It doesn't depend on your prior degree of belief; if it does, it's not evidence, it's special pleading.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why, I started out with the hope that it was true, and as I tried believing in it, it came to me that a belief in the teapot made me a happier and better person. How else could one possibly arrive at beliefs?
But what conceived the idea in your head? How were made aware of this idea?
And fair enough if you actually believe it, its not beyond the bounds of being possible. Just be open to the fact it might not be true, or that its utterly unsignificant.
quote: I think you might have been able to, through such things as genetics (at the Gregor Mendel level, of course, not modern DNA), population dynamics, and the observed effects of breeding. But if you could not, then I would not consider it rational to believe in evolution; thus, I don't quite understand your point.
My point is that science is basically working off the past experiences of others. Science today is much easier to trust and understand after so many years of work. All the work of scientists throughout history are akin to the experience of a single human being. Science would not be nearly as appealing to the very first human being, at least what I mean is many of our ideas today would sound ridiculous to early men. You have to do the ground work yourself if you are to believe the work of the more advanced sciences. Religion does not work as a collective effort either.
Everyone must start out uninitiated and work their way from there. Though eventually (at least within my religion) all the truths of science are revealed as a biproduct of righteous living (good people seek knowledge of all kinds), you can conceivably live a perfectly righteous life without any science.
quote:Eh, what? Evidence is evidence. It doesn't depend on your prior degree of belief; if it does, it's not evidence, it's special pleading.
Physical evidence can strengthen belief but it cannot be the foundation. I've stated before why God cannot simply provide the physical evidence before giving us the opportunity to actually experience the virtues of his way.
A: If he just appeared to us we could explain it away with a multitude of explanations
B: We would be the students with the teachers doing all the work if we allowed God to simply dominate our choices.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to leave for now KOM. I must confess you have given me cause to consider some specifics more closely. I hope you will still be up for discussion tomorrow.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
(That was to KoM)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
If people are to rewarded EXACLTY as much as they deserve to be, then it makes no sense to have the limits of 2 outcomes. In life are you rewarded with exactly the same reward everytime you do any good and punished in exactly the same manner every time you do ill, with no variation in intensity? I do not think so, why should the afterlife be any different.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Apart from that, your analogy of the scientist just doesn't fit. Scientists solve very specific problems. They certainly do not build up a huge hypothesis on mere hope, and then go about gathering evidence for it.
