|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Greater Miracle | |||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Michamus writes:
Cute. He was also a man who walked among us. You know what the differences are.
So then Jesus wasn't a god? Got it. Michamus writes: Hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of modern Christianity is based on Paul's teachings... The Modern Canon is also based on what books a council of Christianity's early religious leaders voted on (through bribery of the Roman Empire) being allowed into the Canon. There was even a huge disagreement as to whether the version of Revelation with 616 as the Mark of the Beast was the accurate one, or the one with 666. Paul didn't write any of the OT, the gospels and about half of the rest of the OT. For that matter he wouldn't be considered particularly rich or powerful anyway. He had position in the church but whatever wealth and power he had, he had a lot less of it after his "road to Damascus" experience.
Michamus writes: Christianity's history has been fraught with power and corruption. Too true. The big problem with the church is that its made up of imperfect people like myself.
Michamus writes: So, given the obvious power Paulism provides in creating a fatal loop of self guilt, and the need for church sponsored salvation, it is no wonder early Christianity was manipulated into the political powerhouse it has been since That's a misrepresentation of the Christianity but I'll leave it at that. We would agree that the Christian faith has been manipulated by many for hundreds of years for personal gain, which is the exact opposite of what the church should stand for.
Michamus writes: Frankly, Jesus' teachings were hardly unique to him, in that they mimicked Pharisee teachings that pre-dated his birth by half a century. It really doesn't matter what the Jews believed though, as many Asian, and Middle Eastern Religions had resurrected gods long before Christianity. I completely disagree with this. The fact that he did oppose both politically and theologically the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders was the reason He went to the cross when He did. The Pharisees were about militarily regaining control of the Jewish homeland and their temple. Jesus was telling them to "love their enemies', "turn the other cheek", "go the extra mile" and so on. The Pharisees believed that to be made right with God required going to the Temple with an offering, whereas Jesus made that unnecessary. Their idea of what a messiah should be differed radically. They wanted a messiah that would lead them against Rome whereas Jesus saw His messianic mission to be one of a suffering servant.
Michamus writes: As I mentioned before, they didn't just put existing stories together, they picked between which VERSIONS of the stories would go in... Such as, all in favor of 666 being the mark of the beast, say "AYE", and so it was picked in favor of the version with 616. They put prayerfully put together a canon that incorporated the teachings that were predominate in the early church.
Michamus writes: Of course you will. You have the cultural pre-disposition to do so. I grew up going to church but I walked away from it in my teens and was an agnostic for about 20 years. During the time I worked in a very secular environment and if I was going to be impacted by culture I would still be an agnostic. Agnosticism was certainly the primary religion in my culture.
Michamus writes: Of course it seems more likely to you that Christ was the REAL resurrected god, among the pantheon of competing resurrected gods. Care to impart any actual reason that you reject Mithra's resurrection as being possible in favor of Christ's? Mithra was again a mythological Persian god that was not someone who walked on Earth as one of us. The concept of resurrection then means altogether something different. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Rrhain writes: But the very process of science is to investigate the actions of things that happen on their own. It isn't that science denies god: Science simply excludes god just as it excludes you. You exist (and please let us not wander off into Cartesian Doubt...for the sake of argument, I hope we can assume you exist), but science excludes your actions when it is investigating things. You, being a consciousness, are capricious and arbitrary. You are unpredictable and cannot be controlled for in an experiment. Thus, science seeks to exclude your actions in order to find out what happens despite you, not because of you. And thus, it is very important to establish whether or not there is anything that happens on its own. If there isn't, then we have no basis for anticipating any outcome for any action. The only reason why we're still firmly attached to the planet is because god is personally, deliberately, and consciously keeping us attached rather than it happening on its own due to gravity. As soon as god stops paying attention, we all go flying. That's helpful. I can agree the that things happen on their own. Actually I am probably different in my thinking than most of my fellow Christians. I have been influenced by John Polkinghorne. His contention is that God has created us in such a way that the future is open. He may be all knowing in the sense that He has awareness of all that is and was, and how that might impact the future, but He isn't actually aware of what you or I might specifically do or have happen to us tomorrow. I find that view consistent with the grand narrative in the Bible, (from creation to new creation), and with Chrisitian experience. (Now I'm open to attack from all sides. )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
GDR responds to me:
quote: Good. The question now becomes, why is this particular outcome one that requires god as opposed to something happening on its own? In and of itself, it isn't an easy question. Suppose we agree that when we take a handful of coins and toss them on the ground, they wind up in their final position on their own due to the interactions of gravity and kinematics. Now, suppose I take an identical handful of coins and personally, deliberately, and consciously place them in the exact same pattern as the coins that landed in those positions all on their own. Do you think you'd be able to tell the difference? Notice what was done, however: A consciousness created a pattern that mimics a spontaneous pattern. Given that the pattern looks like it was spontaneous, why is there a problem with making the tentative claim (as science only makes tentative claims) that it was? If there is more information that needs to be considered that would show a way to differentiate between the two ("Notice how there are fingerprints right next to the coins on the floor and only next to the coins rather than all over the place"), then there would be reason to think that something else is at play. But if it looks like something is capable of happening on its own, why is there a problem with that conclusion? If there is a discrepancy between what we have observed to be the nature of reality and your personal conception of how reality is supposed to be, shouldn't you at least consider the possibility that it is the conception that is at fault and not reality itself? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Rrhain writes: But if it looks like something is capable of happening on its own, why is there a problem with that conclusion? There is no problem, although it doesn't neceesarily make the conclusion correct either.
Rrhain writes: If there is a discrepancy between what we have observed to be the nature of reality and your personal conception of how reality is supposed to be, shouldn't you at least consider the possibility that it is the conception that is at fault and not reality itself? Fair enough. I'll go along with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5157 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
GDR writes:
As were the other resurrected gods I mentioned... They even had sexual relations with human women, who gave birth to legendary men... interesting the parallels, isn't it?
Cute. He was also a man who walked among us. You know what the differences are.
GDR writes:
I am presuming you mean the New Testament, and not the Old Testament. Other than that, there are only 5 books that Paul did not write. In fact, much of the "sinful" nature of man, and the fall being the cause of death/disease, etc come directly from Paul's teachings.
Paul didn't write any of the OT, the gospels and about half of the rest of the OT.
GDR writes:
Since when does going from a mere officer of a church to a leader of one become a "lesser status"?
He had position in the church but whatever wealth and power he had, he had a lot less of it after his "road to Damascus" experience.
GDR writes:
Which is why it was corrupt from it's inception.
Too true. The big problem with the church is that its made up of imperfect people like myself.
GDR writes:
...and exactly why you shouldn't trust anything that has come from it.
We would agree that the Christian faith has been manipulated by many for hundreds of years for personal gain, which is the exact opposite of what the church should stand for.
GDR writes:
I completely disagree with this. The fact that he did oppose both politically and theologically the Pharisees and other Jewish leaders was the reason He went to the cross when He did. The Pharisees were about militarily regaining control of the Jewish homeland and their temple. Jesus was telling them to "love their enemies'
quote: quote: GDR writes:
Says who? Them? Need I remind you what you just said:
They put prayerfully put together a canon that incorporated the teachings that were predominate in the early church.
quote: GDR writes:
Agnosticism is certainly not a religion.
Agnosticism was certainly the primary religion in my culture.
Agnosticism - noun an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge. GDR writes:
Mithra was again a mythological Persian god that was not someone who walked on Earth as one of us.
quote:Out of time, looking up more info for you on the resurrection legends for Mithra.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
GDR responds to me:
quote:quote: I never said it did. Remember, I specifically and directly commented that every claim in science is tentative. Can we accept that? The point is: If it looks like it is capable of happening on its own, under what basis are you insisting that it isn't? If we see the coins that look like they landed that way all on their own, in the absence of any other evidence to indicate the contrary, why would we insist that no, god came down and personally, deliberately, and consciously put them there? Again, this doesn't mean that the conclusion is right. Everything in science is tentative. A personally, deliberately, and consciously created construct that is made to specifically mimic a spontaneous construct will fool people. If enough traces of the creation process are wiped away, it may very well be that we will never know. My personal feeling? Life started a long time ago. From all indications, life started up real soon after the planet came into being. Too, life started off small. Since our planet is geologically active, my expectation is that any signs of how life began will have been wiped away by now. I'm pessimistic. My expectation is that we might find a method by which biological activity that we would call "life" is possible (and we can already create self-replicating, autocatalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve), but to show that it is how it happened here on this planet will be problematic at best. But, if we find that it can be done, by what reason do we claim that it wasn't? The fact that we might not ever be able to definitively say that it was (as far as science can ever definitively say anything) doesn't give us reason to insist that it wasn't. You always have to justify your claim. Otherwise, "It seems like this is what happened" is the only claim we can possibly make. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Rrhain writes: But, if we find that it can be done, by what reason do we claim that it wasn't? The fact that we might not ever be able to definitively say that it was (as far as science can ever definitively say anything) doesn't give us reason to insist that it wasn't. You always have to justify your claim. Otherwise, "It seems like this is what happened" is the only claim we can possibly make. This is what I believe I have been saying all along. We can look at what evidence we do have from our own sense of self, religious texts, science,what others have to say etc. and then draw our own conclusions so that we can say "it seems like this is what happened". It is a matter of faith, but for those of us that do spend time thinking about it and trying to sort out what we believe is truth, it isn't a blind faith. It is an informed faith even though some of us will come to opposite conclusions. Edited by GDR, : sp Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Hi Michamus
I've read and own the book "Don't Know Much About Mythology" by Kenneth C. Davis. I found it interesting. I agree that my Christianity is a faith. I have no empirical truth. As Bob Dylan said, "you've got to serve somebody". I have chosen to serve the Judeo/Christian God as represented by Jesus Christ. In my view the Christian story makes sense of the world that I live in both historically and spiritually. I find it not only consistent with what I know of science but complementary as many actual scientists will agree. You have obviously chosen to serve a secular god. Maybe you're right and maybe I am. Neither of us are likely to convince the other, but after 30 years as a Christian I know what I have experienced and I know what I have learned in the intervening years. My knowledge and understanding of my faith has evolved over the years and I expect that it will continue to do so. I guess the only other thing I can suggest by answer is to read my post to Rrhain right above this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michamus Member (Idle past 5157 days) Posts: 230 From: Ft Hood, TX Joined: |
GDR writes:
You are so deluded in your worldview, that you make ridiculous statements like these. You might as well be saying a completely bald man chooses to style his hair.
You have obviously chosen to serve a secular god.
GDR writes:
Again, you use another ridiculous statement. One cannot be informed (having information (knowledge)) and faith. You either know it, or believe it. Science is knowledge, religion is belief (faith).
It is an informed faith even though some of us will come to opposite conclusions.
GDR writes:
And a muslim man here in Afghanistan is convinced that Allah made everything, and that he must kill me to appease this Allah. What's even more ludicrous is this all makes the most sense to him.
In my view the Christian story makes sense of the world that I live in both historically and spiritually.
It made sense up until a few hundred years ago, that the sun revolved around the Earth. Don't believe it? Well just look at it! I mean it does look like it is revolving around us. Just because it makes sense in the mind, doesn't mean it is true to reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
GDR responds to me:
quote: Hold it just a second there. You do realize that "sense of self" and "religious texts" are not evidence, yes? You just contradicted yourself. If we find that it can be done, by what reason do we claim that it wasn't? Because our "sense of self" doesn't like the implications of it being able to happen on its own? That our "religious texts" tell us that it is a sin to say that it did? You're trying to say that your personal distaste is sufficient to deny actual results.
quote: No, it isn't and for you to say that it is shows that you don't know what science is or how it works.
quote: And this is the problem: "Thinking about it" is nowhere near enough effort to understand the issues. That's why science is done in laboratories and in the field: You have to do actual experiments and make real measurements of real events in order to come up with anything approaching useful. This was the flaw of Aristotle. He was brilliant and his ability to think was very good, but he disdained experimentation and valued mere thought over actual practice. Thinking about things is very good at getting questions asked, but it is lousy at answering them.
quote: Um, if I can show you it happening right in front of your eyes, why would you have us deny it? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Rrahin writes: And this is the problem: "Thinking about it" is nowhere near enough effort to understand the issues. That's why science is done in laboratories and in the field: You have to do actual experiments and make real measurements of real events in order to come up with anything approaching useful. This was the flaw of Aristotle. He was brilliant and his ability to think was very good, but he disdained experimentation and valued mere thought over actual practice. I have no argument with any branch of science and frankly I'm even inclined to view science as a theological pursuit, in that through it we can learn about the creator by learning about the creation. I just disagree with you on the idea that the only evidence that is to be considered is scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
GDR responds to me:
quote: Not quite. There are other kinds of evidence, but they are not objective. Science can tell you all sorts of things about a waveform such as its frequency, wavelength, amplitude, how far it will travel in various types of media, etc. What it cannot do is tell you if it is music. You seem to want to elevate your personal feelings about the world with actual observations. How many times do we have to be led down the primrose path before we realize that we don't get to tell the world how to behave? Aristotle was sure that objects came to rest because that was their "natural state." He had an entire philosophy that told him this was so, but the universe cares not one whit about philosophy. So Newton came along and thought that things in motion stayed in motion until acted upon by an outside force, but he still thought there was a thing as "rest" and he, too, had a philosophy about it. It wasn't until Einstein came along and showed that there is no such thing as "rest" in an absolute sense that we found ourselves here. Of course the earth is the center of the universe! God wouldn't put his favored creation anywhere else! People were MURDERED because they contradicted this claim. All because our philosophies were in contradiction to the universe. So again I have to ask: If it can be shown to you right in front of your very eyes, why would you seek to have us deny it? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Rrhain writes: Not quite. There are other kinds of evidence, but they are not objective. Science can tell you all sorts of things about a waveform such as its frequency, wavelength, amplitude, how far it will travel in various types of media, etc. What it cannot do is tell you if it is music. I agree that the type of evidence that I'm talking about isn't objective, (but the same can be said of a great deal of science for that matter).
Rrhain writes: You seem to want to elevate your personal feelings about the world with actual observations. How many times do we have to be led down the primrose path before we realize that we don't get to tell the world how to behave? Aristotle was sure that objects came to rest because that was their "natural state." He had an entire philosophy that told him this was so, but the universe cares not one whit about philosophy. So Newton came along and thought that things in motion stayed in motion until acted upon by an outside force, but he still thought there was a thing as "rest" and he, too, had a philosophy about it. It wasn't until Einstein came along and showed that there is no such thing as "rest" in an absolute sense that we found ourselves here. So what? We keep learning new things and we change our beliefs in the face of new evidence. Learning and adjusting one's views is usually a good thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I have no argument with any branch of science and frankly I'm even inclined to view science as a theological pursuit, in that through it we can learn about the creator by learning about the creation.
Viewing science as a way to learn about the creator is fine, as long as you are following the scientific method when you do science. Creationists tend to be anti-science because they place scripture or the bible as higher forms of knowledge. You can't have it both ways; either you follow the empirical evidence wherever it leads, using the scientific method, or you follow other forms of "knowledge." And those forms are almost always non-empirical and non-verifiable. Most resolve back into history to "trust me" at some point. You wouldn't buy a used car on "trust me" would you?
I just disagree with you on the idea that the only evidence that is to be considered is scientific. That's the rub, eh? What evidence do you feel is worth considering, and how do you determine that? From the following list, which would you trust, and why?
What it comes down to is you can decide among the various claims by empirical evidence, and using the scientific method. If you choose to ignore empirical evidence, and to ignore the scientific method, you can't claim to be doing science. You are in fact doing just the opposite; you are, in fact, anti-science. Creationists normally bristle at being called anti-science, but the evidence shows clearly that they reject the scientific method and scientific evidence when those contradict their chosen beliefs. If that isn't anti-science I don't know what is. And here's more evidence: the AnswersinGenesis Statement of Faith (first part only): See any science in there? Anywhere? No, you don't. What you see is scripture and the bible being placed above empirical evidence and the scientific method--no matter what that evidence may be. That's anti-science in anybody's book. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Coyote writes: Viewing science as a way to learn about the creator is fine, as long as you are following the scientific method when you do science. Creationists tend to be anti-science because they place scripture or the bible as higher forms of knowledge. I agree with following the scientific method as a way to learn about the creator. I'm a creationist in that I believe the God of the OT created all that is. How he went about it is sometyhing I'm interested in scientifically but not theologically. If God chose to use an evolutioanry process, (which looks to be the case). that's fine with me.
Coyote writes: That's the rub, eh? What evidence do you feel is worth considering, and how do you determine that? From the following list, which would you trust, and why? Magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, faked moon landings, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, a flat or hollow earth, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, crop circles, the electric universe, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, geocentrism, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, televangelists, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff. That's quite a list. Actually I'm thinking more along the lines of the fact that we can reason. Reason had to come from somewhere. What is reason in the first place? If it comes from simply unguided biological mutations then why should we trust our reason. It seems to me likely that reason had to exist prior to reason coming into existence on Earth. Can I prove it sientifically? No. Is it evidence worth considering. I think so. Where do emotions come from? What is an idea. Is an idea material? If not what is it. I think it's worth considering as evidence. You can draw your conclusions and I'll draw mine. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024