|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/08/2008 11:11:25 AM · #251 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I'm going to make this my last post regarding this subject and bow out of the conversation as it is going nowhere. |
Otherwise known as, "I'm losing the argument, so screw you guys I'm going home."
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I wish all of you well. |
Since you basically threatened me with Christ's wrath in his second coming, I doubt it. |
I just can't seem to help myself from posting again. I'm not losing the argument. That is where you have fallen off of the trolley. All I was trying to get you guys to do is to admit that it is possible that there is a God. I figured if you could do that then just maybe at some point down the road you would figure it out. . . . I do wish you well. Sincerely. I would hope that you could feel the same toward me. |
As I stated above, I don't have a problem with you personally. I don't know you. I have a problem with your argument, not your person. Having said that, the arrogance and hubris in your statements and your proselytizing have long worn thin. I never thought I would miss Flash in this debate, but your ravings make Flash's nonsequitors seem like the paragon of reasoned discourse.
In your proselytizing, what you want to claim is special access to not just knowledge, but absolute truth.
- You have a personal relationship with God. All others who believe as fully as you do that they have a personal relationship with their god, but who disagree with the particular precepts to which you subscribe must therefore be wrong.
- You believe that any disagreements with persons from the above can be settle by reference to "scripture." You don't indicate which scripture, but we will assume you mean the Bible and the New Testament. You don't indicate which translation of these books you hold to be definitive, even though there are myriad translations flowing from the ambiguous nature of the ancient language (in which we will make the assumption that you are not fluent) in which the books were originally written. You don't provide a mechanism to resolve doctrinal disagreements that may arise in relation to portions of these books which are inherently ambiguous, or those portions in which these books are internally inconsistent or contradictory.
- You don't indicate whether you believe these books to be allegorical philosophy, literal truth, or some combination thereto. If literal, you don't provide a consistent and reliable method to reconcile the internal contradictions and ambiguities. If not literal, you don't provide a consistent and reliable method to reconcile which portions are to be taken as history versus which portions are to be taken as parable and allegory.
- You have "figured it out" in regards to the grand questions of belief and religion. Despite millennia of argument, disagreement, war, and rival belief, you have not doubt that you are right, and all those who disagree with you are wrong.
- Being wrong has disastrous consequences for these people, eternal and horrific consequences which should trouble a compassionate and "Christ-like" individual, but you are untroubled by this aspect of your belief because it is not you who condemn them, it is your God, who you have no right to question. There suffering is their own fault because they choose not to accept "the truth" -- a truth which is obvious if only looked at "correctly" but which there oddly seems to be very little consensus to in the whole.
- You seem to want to believe that to be a Christian is a difficult and noble path, for which you and other Christians suffer for your beliefs. You want to claim this is somehow "proof" of the rightness of your belief, but you want to discount the fact that members of other religions (not to mention nonbelievers) have historically and currently suffered just as much, and more, persecution as Christians have. You also seem to want to deny that being Christian in a predominately Christian society gives you benefits, just as being Muslim in an Islamic country would provide benefits, and etc.
You state that you "aren't losing the argument," and perhaps you are right. But that is only because you haven't engaged in argument. Instead you have proselytized and proclaimed. Argument is persuasion, and to persuade you must provide something outside of personal belief. You provide nothing but personal belief, blind faith, and unfounded claims. If you were as open to the argument as you claim you want others to be, there might be room for a discussion.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 11:20:44 AM · #252 |
I posed these questions in another thread to another member, who basically refused to engage them. I'll post them again for dponlyme, or anyone else who might want to bite on the hook I'm dangling. Some of the questions assume that the Christian believer lives, or was at least born and raised, in North America, Europe, or another predominately Christian country. Since this is an international site, I understand that there may be someone on here who doesn't necessarily fall into that category. The odds are slim, however, so I'll take the chance.
Questions for a Christian:
1) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that there is an afterlife?
2) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that a supreme being exists?
3) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that this supreme is the God of the Christian Bible?
4) Do you claim that this Bible is literal (that is inerrant) truth?
5) If you do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, do you claim to know what parts of the Bible are in error or open to interpretation?
If you have answered Yes to any of the questions above, what makes you feel that you have some special access to truth, where others may question, doubt, or disagree?
Part II
6) Where you born into a religious family?
7) If yes, what religion would your parent(s) have identified themselves as at the time of your childhood?
8) Would you consider this religion to be "Christian"?
9) Do you consider yourself to be of the same religious faith as your parents?
10) If not, what prompted you to change your religious identification?
11) If you did change your religious identification, or even if you have never changed your religious identification, did you ever consider a non-Christian religious faith, such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or other faith/philosophy that is outside of the main religious tradition of the society in which you grew up?
12) If no to #10, why not?
13) If yes to #10, what made you reject that faith/philosophy?
Part III
14) Why do you think you are so particularly blessed to have been born into a society where Christianity is dominant and it is so easy to practice your beliefs without interference?
15) Why do you think those born into religious societies that are divergent or in opposition to Christianity (a majority of the world's population) are so unfortunate as to be born into a society that makes it so difficult, counterintuitive, and in some cases criminal, to believe and practice the only religious practice that will allow them to enter heaven?
16) Do you believe that all souls never exposed to Christianity (which would be the vast majority of people to have walked the earth since the time of recorded history) are condemned to be barred from entering heaven?
17) If yes to #14, why were those souls placed into such a position as to make it almost impossible for them to learn the truth and do the things that their Creator requires of them to complete his plan and earn his rewards?
edited to correct numbering
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 12:24:18. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 11:39:19 AM · #253 |
So I was reading Desire of the Everlast Hills last night and I came across this passage. I thought I'd reproduce it here, not to prove any point, but because those who write books for a living tend to be more eloquent than I am. Cahill is speaking about the many miracles recorded in the Gospels and wondering if they are fabricated, based on some real event or completely true. In the passage just before we pick up, Cahill contends it would be nearly impossible to account for the miracles as mere trickery.
A careful analysis of the texts of the gospels, however, has convinced many scripture scholars that several, perhaps even a majority, of the basic miracle stories go back to the most primitive layer of the oral tradition--that is, to the testmony of the original eyewitnesses. One of these scholars is John Meier, whose multivolume study of the "historical Jesus," A Marginal Jew, devotes more than five hundred pages to the miracles of Jesus--a more exhaustive analysis than, I think, has ever been attempted before. Meier is careful to distinguish between what is historically knowable and what is "metahistorical." The miracles--if they could have occurred--he classifies as "metahistorical" because they are, of their very nature, beyond anything that can be proved to have happened. Meier's modest conclusion is simply that "the statement that Jesus acted as and was viewed as an exorcist and healer during his public ministsry has as much historical corroboration as almost any other statement we can make about the Jesus of history."
We seem to be faced here with a kind of irreducible historical mystery. We may grant that Mary Magdalene was not possessed, perhaps only the victim of a particularly vicious form of schizophrenia, symbolized by "seven devils," and that the "possessed boy" of Mark's Gospel was really an epileptic. We may grant that the "lepers" of the gospels had psoriasis or eczema or any of a variety of virulent skin diseases that ancient peoples had not the medical knowledge to distinguish from authentic leprosy. We can, according to Meier, claim that Jesus walking on the water never happened but is only a theologoumenon, a symbolic epiphany of Jesus who appears to us in the dark--that is, in our worst hour--to say: "It is I [or 'Here I am' or even the Hebrew God's 'I am'], so don't be afraid." But we cannot, it would appear, brush aside the miracles of healing as old wives' tales. The people who witnessed them believed they had occurred. At least some of the people, like Mary Magdalene, who experienced them found in this extraordinary attention reason to devote themselves permanently to Jesus's mission. To have been rendered sane or healthy or living once more must, after all, have struck the individual so cured as an overhwelming proof of God's personal care--a miracle for me.
He goes on to finish the chapter in an eloquent summary of our argument here on the thread.
In the final analysis, the modern problem with miracles is little different from what the ancient one would have been. If one believes in a God who heals, then healing it itself--whether of the quotidian kind or of an uncommon and spectacular sort--will hardly seem inconceivable or out of reach. If one cannot conceive of such a God--of an ultimate Goodness at the heart of the universe--miracles are, both intellectually and emotionally, off limits. In speaking of the medically inexplicable cures that have been occurring for a century and a half at the French shrine of Lourdes, John LaFarge, son of the American painter of the same name and a man who dedicated his life to peace and reconciliation, remarked cogently: For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, no explanation is possible.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 11:40:56 AM · #254 |
Sorry shutterpuppy, looks like we were typing at the same time. I don't want it to look like I was simply ignoring you.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 11:54:54 AM · #255 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Sorry shutterpuppy, looks like we were typing at the same time. I don't want it to look like I was simply ignoring you. |
Not at all. You can address the questions, if you like. But I think that your answers to most has already been addressed in your collective previous postings.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 12:04:08 PM · #256 |
OK, I'm a big enough boy I'll bite. Instead of chopping things up, I'll just answer at the bottom.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Questions for a Christian:
1) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that there is an afterlife?
2) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that a supreme being exists?
3) Do you claim to know, without doubt, that this supreme is the God of the Christian Bible?
4) Do you claim that this Bible is literal (that is inerrant) truth?
5) If you do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, do you claim to know what parts of the Bible are in error or open to interpretation?
If you have answered Yes to any of the questions above, what makes you feel that you have some special access to truth, where others may question, doubt, or disagree?
Part II
6) Where you born into a religious family?
7) If yes, what religion would your parent(s) have identified themselves as at the time of your childhood?
8) Would you consider this religion to be "Christian"?
9) Do you consider yourself to be of the same religious faith as your parents?
10) If not, what prompted you to change your religious identification?
11) If you did change your religious identification, or even if you have never changed your religious identification, did you ever consider a non-Christian religious faith, such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or other faith/philosophy that is outside of the main religious tradition of the society in which you grew up?
12) If no to #10, why not?
13) If yes to #10, what made you reject that faith/philosophy?
Part III
12) Why do you think you are so particularly blessed to have been born into a society where Christianity is dominant and it is so easy to practice your beliefs without interference?
13) Why do you think those born into religious societies that are divergent or in opposition to Christianity (a majority of the world's population) are so unfortunate as to be born into a society that makes it so difficult, counterintuitive, and in some cases criminal, to believe and practice the only religious practice that will allow them to enter heaven?
14) Do you believe that all souls never exposed to Christianity (which would be the vast majority of people to have walked the earth since the time of recorded history) are condemned to be barred from entering heaven?
15) If yes to #14, why were those souls placed into such a position as to make it almost impossible for them to learn the truth and do the things that their Creator requires of them to complete his plan and earn his rewards? |
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. The message of the bible is inerrant. Discrepancies due to human error may have crept in, but these are small and insignificant compared to the overall message. If I believe in the Christian God, it follows that I believe Him to be capable of preserving his message.
5. N/A
6. Yes
7. Christian
8. see 7
9. Yes
10. N/A
11. Yes. I have studied all major world religions and have contemplated atheism.
12. N/A
13. All other major world religions are based on works. That is, salvation is gained through righteousness. I disagree with this and know that even if I am wrong, the Christian life is generally considered righteous by all other major world religions thus I will likely avoid the brunt of other religion's wrath whether I ascribe to them or not.
12. (what's with the numbering?) "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son...And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Rom 8:29-30)
13. See 12 for the short answer.
14. This question is always moot to the people involved in the conversation. However, the answer is I don't know and I am not the arbiter of that justice. Jesus did tell us in a parable in Luke: " That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows." Seems to be some differentiation there.
15. see 14.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 12:25:38 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, no explanation is possible. |
Looking at this from a atheist/materialist viewpoint, this is a stunning (and likely unintended) admission that no credible evidence exists for the "reality" of the miracles referenced. I'm sure for the theist, this seems an equally damning condemnation of the nonbeliever's viewpoint.
However, I would fundamentally disagree with his statement that "no explanation is possible." As I've said before, if there was actual, credible, reproducible evidence or corroboration of faith healing or other "miracle" claims, it would be huge news in the materialist community. Would the community be skeptical? Of course, but there would not be the summary rejection of the evidence as occurs for contra-evidence by believers. Skeptics and believers have done extensive research in attempts to verify or debunk miracle/paranormal claims, including the supposed healings at Lourdes. Modern medical science has been so fascinated by the "placebo effect" for a long time that it has devoted extensive research to the topic and is beginning to uncover the biological mechanisms by which very real healing can occur in the apparent absence of physical outside causes.
This research and all brain/mind research is incredibly fascinating, but doesn't require a theistic explanation. The phenomenon isn't even limited to Christian belief or practice, as it has been observed in Buddhist, Hindu and tribal societies. On the surface it appears to be spectacular and unexplainable, but the more it is explored, the less "fantastic" it appears as the very materialistic methods by which it occurs becomes more and more clear.
What is frustrating about the quote you provide above, and the type of arguments that dponlyme put forth, is that if fully embraced and taken to their logical conclusion, they would preclude scientific inquiry. Why ask questions and explore causes when you already have the answer and no further explanation is needed? This was the very attitude, by the way, that pervaded in that epoch we lovingly refer to as "The Dark Ages" where the only answer possible was God and the act of asking why or how was grounds for torture and death. There are those who would like to take us back to that way of thinking, who are actively hostile to free inquiry. Those are the ones I have the problem with.
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 12:27:24. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 12:41:27 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
condemnation of the nonbeliever's viewpoint.
However, I would fundamentally disagree with his statement that "no explanation is possible." As I've said before, if there was actual, credible, reproducible evidence or corroboration of faith healing or other "miracle" claims, it would be huge news in the materialist community. Would the community be skeptical? Of course, but there would not be the summary rejection of the evidence as occurs for contra-evidence by believers. Skeptics and believers have done extensive research in attempts to verify or debunk miracle/paranormal claims, including the supposed healings at Lourdes. Modern medical science has been so fascinated by the "placebo effect" for a long time that it has devoted extensive research to the topic and is beginning to uncover the biological mechanisms by which very real healing can occur in the apparent absence of physical outside causes. |
I think, however, that it would be impossible to satisfy many people that the miracle actually occurred. How would you prove it? "Reproducible"? How is a miracle going to be reproducible when by definition it is "miraculous"? Let's say someone is paralyzed and able to walk again and it defies medical explanation. The atheist, I believe, would feel in his heart that there was still some logical explanation that we just didn't understand. In other words, we mainly view events through our worldview and not the other way around. That's the point of the quote.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 12:43:49 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, I'm a big enough boy I'll bite. Instead of chopping things up, I'll just answer at the bottom.
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. The message of the bible is inerrant. Discrepancies due to human error may have crept in, but these are small and insignificant compared to the overall message. If I believe in the Christian God, it follows that I believe Him to be capable of preserving his message.
5. N/A
6. Yes
7. Christian
8. see 7
9. Yes
10. N/A
11. Yes. I have studied all major world religions and have contemplated atheism.
12. N/A
13. All other major world religions are based on works. That is, salvation is gained through righteousness. I disagree with this and know that even if I am wrong, the Christian life is generally considered righteous by all other major world religions thus I will likely avoid the brunt of other religion's wrath whether I ascribe to them or not.
14. "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son...And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified." (Rom 8:29-30)
15. See 14 for the short answer.
16. This question is always moot to the people involved in the conversation. However, the answer is I don't know and I am not the arbiter of that justice. Jesus did tell us in a parable in Luke: " That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows." Seems to be some differentiation there.
17. see 16. |
Thanks for your answers. I corrected the numbering above, and in the original post.
A pretty mainstream and modern stance for the most part. The responses to the second part do reflect, or appear to anyway, an underlying idea that your place and time of birth somehow reflect some special status on your own part. That you were "called" to have the benefit of not having to overcome the worldly influences of being born into a society, family, and time where being a member of the "true" faith would be such an unlikelihood. And that those who were not somehow deserve their fate, having earned it or being worthy/unworthy of such dispensation prior to their birth.
Unless I've taken you wrong, I will only point out that this comes across as being more than just a little self-satisfied and self-aggrandizing, even though I think you have done a good job of taking out the starkest and harshest potential aspects of this view. But it is really the only logical position that can flow from a Christian (or any strong religious) viewpoint, given the nature of the world. It was very common, in both stronger and lesser flavors, in my own religious upbringing.
I find it highly problematic, but I understand that for most believers it is not.
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 12:44:12. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 12:58:37 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
condemnation of the nonbeliever's viewpoint.
However, I would fundamentally disagree with his statement that "no explanation is possible." As I've said before, if there was actual, credible, reproducible evidence or corroboration of faith healing or other "miracle" claims, it would be huge news in the materialist community. Would the community be skeptical? Of course, but there would not be the summary rejection of the evidence as occurs for contra-evidence by believers. Skeptics and believers have done extensive research in attempts to verify or debunk miracle/paranormal claims, including the supposed healings at Lourdes. Modern medical science has been so fascinated by the "placebo effect" for a long time that it has devoted extensive research to the topic and is beginning to uncover the biological mechanisms by which very real healing can occur in the apparent absence of physical outside causes. |
I think, however, that it would be impossible to satisfy many people that the miracle actually occurred. How would you prove it? "Reproducible"? How is a miracle going to be reproducible when by definition it is "miraculous"? Let's say someone is paralyzed and able to walk again and it defies medical explanation. The atheist, I believe, would feel in his heart that there was still some logical explanation that we just didn't understand. In other words, we mainly view events through our worldview and not the other way around. That's the point of the quote. |
I agree with you on this, to a certain extent. However, if there were constant and verifiable "miracles" (in the case of Lourdes, verifiable would mean confirmed instances where people who partook had been known to have specific illnesses prior to the experience which were, in fact, healed after the experience - aka, person diagnosed with lung cancer goes in, person comes out without lung cancer) - this would be incredibly persuasive evidence that "something" was going on. The skeptic might be highly resistant to the idea of what was going on being unexplainable materialistically, but continued evidence would be difficult to ignore or deny. If the "miracles" continued to occur, but no materialist explanation could be found, the persuasive weight of such evidence would be quite strong.
But, what we see in cases like these are predominately either unverifiable claims of healing (e.g., someone claims to have had their cancer/blindness/etc. cured, but we have no prior verifiable record of the illness) or false belief in the cure (e.g., someone truly believes that they have been cured of their cancer, but they have not and so go without treatment to their detriment). When experimental controls are put into place, the supposed miraculous effects disappear.
I know that there has been evidence of placebo "cures" in controlled studies, but my understanding is that these are never nearly so dramatic as the healing claimed by faith healers, or in scriptural accounts. If you can point me to credible claims of such, I'd be very interested in taking a look at them. Further, as I said above, as further research is conducted, science is beginning to understand the physiological mechanisms behind the effects. Interesting and wonderful - yes. Divine - no.
In other words, it appears that the only way that such miracle claims can be sustained is when they are not subject to critical scrutiny. Such a pattern gives the materialist even more reason for skepticism and naturally increases the demand for proof when the next "miracle" is presented as evidence and proof. Given the foregoing, healthy and abundant skepticism would appear to be the only rational response to miracle claims. But that doesn't mean that such skepticism couldn't be overcome by strong evidence to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 01:08:23 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Unless I've taken you wrong, I will only point out that this comes across as being more than just a little self-satisfied and self-aggrandizing, even though I think you have done a good job of taking out the starkest and harshest potential aspects of this view. But it is really the only logical position that can flow from a Christian (or any strong religious) viewpoint, given the nature of the world. It was very common, in both stronger and lesser flavors, in my own religious upbringing.
I find it highly problematic, but I understand that for most believers it is not. |
Don't view it as self-aggrandizing. I have done nothing to deserve this calling. I do realize however, that my time of birth, place of birth, parents and genetic potential to understand were not dictated by myself. It's an interesting conundrum that Christianity has wrestled with for millenia. Technically, it's the tension between Calvinism and Arminianism. I have personally reconciled the two by looking at them as two sides of the same coin. It can be demonstrated by asking the following questions:
What do I bring to the "table of salvation" (ie. what do I offer to get into heaven)? Myself
Compared to God, what do I bring to the "table of salvation"? Nothing
I don't doubt you find it problematic. Christians themselves have fretted over such things since the beginning. It doesn't seem fair. Paul's response, blunt as he can be, is simply:
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—
In the end, it's not very fruitful to have such an advanced conversation with someone who denies God even exists. It's putting the cart way before the horse.
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 13:15:12.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 01:13:59 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
In other words, it appears that the only way that such miracle claims can be sustained is when they are not subject to critical scrutiny. Such a pattern gives the materialist even more reason for skepticism and naturally increases the demand for proof when the next "miracle" is presented as evidence and proof. Given the foregoing, healthy and abundant skepticism would appear to be the only rational response to miracle claims. But that doesn't mean that such skepticism couldn't be overcome by strong evidence to the contrary. |
I simply doubt your last sentence. There will always be a way to escape the conclusion that what happened was a miracle.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 01:36:08 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1-4. No |
Careful Doc... true faith does not allow for these possibilities, and doubt is a big deal.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The message of the bible is inerrant. Discrepancies due to human error may have crept in, but these are small and insignificant compared to the overall message. If I believe in the Christian God, it follows that I believe Him to be capable of preserving his message. |
Oh, let's just take a simple example... According to Mark, Jesus advises his disciple to get rid of swords because those who “live by the sword shall die by it,” a very clear message. According to Luke, Jesus advises his disciples to buy swords. Those moral messages stand in total opposition. Assuming God is capable of preserving His message is no less a claim than assuming God is capable of making His existence indisputably obvious to all, yet neither has happened.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Jesus did tell us in a parable in Luke: " That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows." Seems to be some differentiation there. |
Not much. I see a story framed in slavery and physical abuse, where ignorance is no excuse. If you do something wrong according to rules you have no way of knowing, you'll still be beaten. In the very next section of Luke, Jesus says, "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." Job well done. :-/ |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 01:38:41 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There will always be a way to escape the conclusion that what happened was a miracle. |
As miracles have been used to explain everything from lightning to a lucky football catch, your statement is steeped in irony. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 01:47:15 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1-4. No |
Careful Doc... true faith does not allow for these possibilities, and doubt is a big deal.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The message of the bible is inerrant. Discrepancies due to human error may have crept in, but these are small and insignificant compared to the overall message. If I believe in the Christian God, it follows that I believe Him to be capable of preserving his message. |
Oh, let's just take a simple example... According to Mark, Jesus advises his disciple to get rid of swords because those who “live by the sword shall die by it,” a very clear message. According to Luke, Jesus advises his disciples to buy swords. Those moral messages stand in total opposition. Assuming God is capable of preserving His message is no less a claim than assuming God is capable of making His existence indisputably obvious to all, yet neither has happened.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Jesus did tell us in a parable in Luke: " That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows." Seems to be some differentiation there. |
Not much. I see a story framed in slavery and physical abuse, where ignorance is no excuse. If you do something wrong according to rules you have no way of knowing, you'll still be beaten. In the very next section of Luke, Jesus says, "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." Job well done. :-/ |
blah blah blah. I open up and I just get it throw in my face. I'm not asking you to participate in my faith. You are stretching as it is. Next time you get pulled over by a cop, tell him "I didn't know the speed limit was X". See what he says. :-/ And don't you think the Matthew (not Mark) passage was Jesus simply saying, "Don't use your swords or you will get killed right here and now by the mob." when he was arrested? Does he have to be making sweeping statments all the time? Does any of this have to do with the message that we are all sinners?
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 13:55:39.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 01:56:58 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Next time you get pulled over by a cop, tell him "I didn't know the speed limit was X". See what he says. :-/ |
He might go back and point to a speed limit sign. Try telling the cop you have special knowledge of a higher law only known to certain members of your group. For bonus points, be sure to tell the cop that he won't be punished as harshly for failing to follow those alternate rules when he obeys the local guidelines. ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 13:58:47. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 01:59:57 PM · #267 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't you think the Matthew (not Mark) passage was Jesus simply saying, "Don't use your swords or you will get killed right here and now by the mob." when he was arrested? ...Does any of this have to do with the message that we are all sinners? |
Nope. Let's just rip those pages out as irrelevant then. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 02:00:46 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
In other words, it appears that the only way that such miracle claims can be sustained is when they are not subject to critical scrutiny. Such a pattern gives the materialist even more reason for skepticism and naturally increases the demand for proof when the next "miracle" is presented as evidence and proof. Given the foregoing, healthy and abundant skepticism would appear to be the only rational response to miracle claims. But that doesn't mean that such skepticism couldn't be overcome by strong evidence to the contrary. |
I simply doubt your last sentence. There will always be a way to escape the conclusion that what happened was a miracle. |
Perhaps, but at some point the adamant materialist would begin to look just as silly as the now adamant "miraclist." |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 02:05:19 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1-4. No |
Careful Doc... true faith does not allow for these possibilities, and doubt is a big deal.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The message of the bible is inerrant. Discrepancies due to human error may have crept in, but these are small and insignificant compared to the overall message. If I believe in the Christian God, it follows that I believe Him to be capable of preserving his message. |
Oh, let's just take a simple example... According to Mark, Jesus advises his disciple to get rid of swords because those who “live by the sword shall die by it,” a very clear message. According to Luke, Jesus advises his disciples to buy swords. Those moral messages stand in total opposition. Assuming God is capable of preserving His message is no less a claim than assuming God is capable of making His existence indisputably obvious to all, yet neither has happened. |
blah blah blah. I open up and I just get it throw in my face. I'm not asking you to participate in my faith. You are stretching as it is. Next time you get pulled over by a cop, tell him "I didn't know the speed limit was X". See what he says. :-/ And don't you think the Matthew (not Mark) passage was Jesus simply saying, "Don't use your swords or you will get killed right here and now by the mob." when he was arrested? Does he have to be making sweeping statments all the time? Does any of this have to do with the message that we are all sinners? |
I took Doc's point of the "inerrant" nature of the message of the Bible to mean that he believed the overarching message that God exists, is an active participant in the lives of men, and that Christ died for our sins to be inerrant, not that any particular story in the Bible was a literal truth -- although I think it is clear that he leaves open the possibility that particular stories are literally true. This still leaves a ton of logistical and philosophical problems, from my point of view, since you are left with the questions of interpretation, translation, and application, but I did not take it in quite the same pinched interpretation as Shannon.
But feel free to correct me, Doc, if I'm wrong. :)
edited so as not to put words in the Doc's mouth
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 14:08:37. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 02:14:31 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I took Doc's point of the "inerrant" nature of the message of the Bible to mean that he believed the overarching message that God exists, is an active participant in the lives of men, and that Christ died for our sins to be inerrant, not that any particular story in the Bible was a literal truth |
Yes I know, but such an assumption reduces the Bible from a book to a paragraph (a much easier message to maintain though time and translation) and raises the obvious problem of determining which parts are "gospel truth" and which parts are irrelevant fluff subject to error. Obvious inconsistencies, even in "unimportant" areas, cast doubt over the credibility of the whole, especially if God is assumed to be capable of protecting his word from corruption.
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 14:20:06. |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 02:20:13 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I took Doc's point of the "inerrant" nature of the message of the Bible to mean that he believed the overarching message that God exists, is an active participant in the lives of men, and that Christ died for our sins to be inerrant, not that any particular story in the Bible was a literal truth |
Yes I know, but such an assumption reduces the Bible from a book to a paragraph (a much easier message to maintain though time and translation) and raises the obvious problem of determining which parts are "gospel truth" and which parts are irrelevant fluff subject to error. |
Shutterpuppy did a decent job of explaining my point of view. I'm sorry if I just don't see a big problem with Jesus warning the disciples they'd be killed at his arrest if they tried to fight their way out (made more obvious by Jesus saying in the same verse, "duh, don't you think I can have God call down a zillion angels? This is SUPPOSED to happen guys.") and his suggestion later that they take a sword with them when they travel. Who cares?
The cop story is supposed to invoke the famous cop line, "Ignorance is no excuse for the law." In the end, as I mentioned, it doesn't matter to you or me because both of us have "heard". I trust God to be just with people who haven't. If He chooses to do something I disagree with, what am I going to do? send him a stern memo?
Message edited by author 2008-04-08 14:21:15.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 02:22:24 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I would be interested to know about our other senses. |
There are quite a few, such as thermoception (heat, cold), nociception (pain), equilibrioception (balance, gravity), proprioception & kinesthesia (relative sense of location of your body, joint motion and acceleration) and sense of time (eg there have been recent reports that some animals sense time differently).
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I admittedly am not an expert on evolution and all I have said about it is limited by my understanding of it. Hopefully there is something of more substance than that eye video. It was not in my opinion scientific but near pure speculation. Help me out here. |
Well there are some elements that should appear to be common sense. I will assume that you understand/agree that genetic traits are inherited by offspring.
Let's take a look at one small aspect of evolutionary theory in the context of your garden.
If you are anything like me, you might grow flowers of a generic kind and forget to water them. The flowers that survive in my garden would be the ones that can live better without being watered. If I let the flowers live and die, then it would not be long before only the hardiest of flowers remained because the less hardy flowers would not survive in the environment of my garden to produce seeds.
If my neighbour were to keep bees (and watered his flowers), then in his garden you might find that it would be the same flowers but those with the scent that the bees most liked that would be most likely to be pollinated and reproduce successfully.
If my other neighbour had a high fence, then his garden might be filled with flowers that survive best and reproduce in low light for the same reasons.
After a few years you would find three gardens with three increasingly different types of flower (eg bigger leaves in the shade, deeper roots in the dry, sweeter smell near the bees).
At its most basic, the plants found in each garden have gradually altered into varieties that have grown genetically more tolerant of different environments.
Looking into the gardens after a few decades, you might see flowers that look different, each attuned to its particular environment. If you did not know better, you might think "what are the chances of there having been these three different varieties of plant here, each found only in the environment for which it is perfectly suited? And one conclusion you might reach might be that the odds are too long for "random chance" to have put these plants in the right places (indeed - the odds if you simply scattered three types of seeds would be millions to one that they fell just so), so it must have been an intelligent gardener. But by looking at the garden in its developed state, you might not realise that the changes were not only naturally occurring, but probable in the circumstances.
Does that make sense? This is only one way in which evolution operates - there is a lot more, but it might be sensible to gain acknowledgement that this bit makes sense first.
Originally posted by dponlyme:
On your final point you have finally admitted to the fact that God might actually exist. I am stunned and very pleased. |
The thing is that, assessed objectively, the odds are almost infinitely small. However, it is impossible to say that they are zero if one is to be strictly accurate (which is why fanatics like to challenge atheists to disprove god: they know that it is impossible to do so, and that atheists tend to be intellectually honest enough not to be able to fudge it in the same way that, for example, you do when you talk about "knowing" that god exists).
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Would you be interested in exploring this possibility further? If so I would love to. This would of course require you to set aside science and look at things in a totally different way. |
Rather than thinking of science as something arcane, perhaps it would be better to think of it as facts for which there is evidence for all to see. You are asking me if I would be willing to set aside facts for which there is evidence for all to see in order to believe in "facts" for which there is no evidence.
Why would I ignore things that I can see for myself in order (per your assessment) to suffer the miserable trials of belief in a notional being?
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 02:24:48 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm sorry if I just don't see a big problem with Jesus warning the disciples they'd be killed at his arrest if they tried to fight their way out (made more obvious by Jesus saying in the same verse, "duh, don't you think I can have God call down a zillion angels? This is SUPPOSED to happen guys.") and his suggestion later that they take a sword with them when they travel. |
Couldn't he equally call down a zillion angels to protect these guys when they travel, too? Suggesting that they take a sword with them at any point implies a certain lack of, um... faith (and they all die untimely deaths anyway). |
|
|
|
04/08/2008 02:25:33 PM · #274 |
(haven't followed this thread for a LONG time, but Shannon's thoughts just hit a nerve with me)
Shannon, your statement is 100% true. If I had a dollar for every weirdo that I've heard attribute everything and anything the God's miraculous hand ... I'd be rich. It doesn't take much to make an intelligent christian look like an idiot, and it happens all the time. I get lumped in with Dave Koresh because he called himself a christian ... great, thanks dave.
... but that doesn't make christianity false.
There's idiot's that make athiest look stupid all the time ... but that doesn't make atheism false either.
(back to the regular program)
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There will always be a way to escape the conclusion that what happened was a miracle. |
As miracles have been used to explain everything from lightning to a lucky football catch, your statement is steeped in irony. |
|
|
|
|
04/08/2008 02:28:25 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm sorry if I just don't see a big problem with Jesus warning the disciples they'd be killed at his arrest if they tried to fight their way out (made more obvious by Jesus saying in the same verse, "duh, don't you think I can have God call down a zillion angels? This is SUPPOSED to happen guys.") and his suggestion later that they take a sword with them when they travel. |
Couldn't he equally call down a zillion angels to protect these guys when they travel, too? Suggesting that they take a sword with them at any point implies a certain lack of, um... faith (and they all die untimely deaths anyway). |
Yup, he could have.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 08:00:31 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 08:00:31 PM EDT.
|
