is it possible that....

quote:

---

Originally posted by countryLover198:
...someone like Jesus could create a new religion like christianity??

​

i'm wondering and i'm waiting for answers,if you can
thanx!

---

Jesus didn't create the religion of Christianity. Paul did many years after Christ had died on the cross.The only difference between a mainstream religion and a cult is who is in power.

Originally posted by gene90:I've never heard of John Smith but I'm sure there are lots out there. Perhaps you mean Joseph Smith, Junior, born in Sharon, VT, founded the LDS church in Palmyra, NY, murdered with his brother Hyrum while unjustly imprisoned (for treason) in the jail of Carthage, Illinois, on 27 June 1844.That is the claim of all who want to assert martyrdom. Christ actually did break the law of the time.I wonder about people who start religions that so offend their neighbors that the neighbors want to do them physical harm. I wonder more about the supposed hucksters who the neighbors find so offensive that the governor of the state authorizes an Extermination Order, encouraging any member of the group to be killed on sight. Finally, I wonder most about hucksters that spend months in jail dungeons and give up their own lives for the religions they found.The religiously deluded most often think that they have the absolute TRUTH on their side about god and that they mistakenly think that people will automatically believe and accept whatever they say because of this.The idea that Smith deliberately misled people is unlikely. I think it is obvious that he at least believed in what he did.Maybe the first person he should have worried about misleading was himself. I suppose that Koresh and Jones actually believed what they were doing was their god's will as well.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Whatever the case the Bible and Judaism/Christianity is unique on this planet in myriad aspects.

---

Hardly. Christianity "borrowed" much of its doctrine, rites, and rituals from older belief systems. Very little of it is original. As for Judaism they got much of their beliefs from the Babylonians during their time as their slaves. Christianity isn't even really mono-theistic. It has a head god, his son, and demi-gods (Angels), a god of the underworld, etc.Lastly, the bible uses the same sources as the Torah(etc), and the Qu'ran and puts its own "spin" on them.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RedVento:
and don't forget the holy spirit..

​

The trinity makes for a lovely monothiestic religion...

---

It is also nonsensical as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
Jesus "birthed" (began on earth what was out of Heaven) what was later called "Christianity" after people began calling followers of Christ's teachings "Christians" at Antioch.

​

Because his disciples were unable to absorb and comprehend all Jesus had to teach, He sent back the Holy Spirit, who inspired those same disciples to say and write the many other things Jesus said would come later. The synoptic gospels (first 4 NT Books) recorded the actual contributions of Christ, his words and ministries. Paul (in his epistles) was the primary definer of Christian doctrine, independently harmonized with the writings of the other apostles. That Paul was converted then immediately separated from other Christians, having no contact with the apostles or their writings, yet coming out of his wilderness seclusion with doctrines not at all discordant with those of the original remaining 11 apostles, is very strong evidence of the inspired nature of his teachings. Paul was at least as equally inspired of the Spirit as Peter or John, as though Paul walked with Jesus a devoted disciple, not the avowed enemy of the sect of Christ, which he was many years until his conversion on the Damascus road.

​

The seed of truth as taught by Christ is present in and the basis of all the doctrines of all the apostles. Those men simply added to what Christ delivered, carrying out the command of Christ to do so by the power of the Spirit sent to them at the Day of Pentecost.

---

Spending too much time alone in the woods? You know, there are other books you can get to bring with you instead of the bible to read.

Originally posted by gene90:Another fine, logic-filled post from Nos. Isn't that called "Trolling"?Non sequitur. As Mr. Spock said in the first movie, "Logic is not enough..."

Originally posted by gene90:What else, from a philosophical perspective, do you need? And here lays your problem. You can't see any further than this. You're stuck at the start.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]At least one A Priori object and an Intention![/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

I think that the truth of the existance of the observer is a synthetic a priori statement because intentionality is contingent upon it. However I feel that the existance of God is an a posteriori truth. The core of most of my argument though against strong atheism is that the existance of God is a logical possibility therefore the principles of justified true belief, evidentialism, and their kin, while they work fine in science, are insufficient for a complete model of the universe. Of course, my position is non-falsifiable!

---

If that is so than the existence of the tooth fairy is a logical possibility as well since she has just as much evidence in favor of her existence as your god does. Many people have also believed in her existence for many centuries and much has been written about her as well. You probably believed in her at one time as well. [This message has been edited by nos482, 09-14-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:
That is correct. The only way to refute a logical possibility is through internal contradiction. Evidence is irrelevant in modal logic, which deals with only possibilities, ie, blind speculation.So, you must accept the possibility of the existence of a tooth fairy or else what you believe in is untrue.However you overlooked that I mentioned that it is my opinion that the existance of God is also an a posteriori truth.
Please define "posteriori truth"?[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-14-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:Yes, to the same extent one believes in the validity of modal logic. I see it as a first step to establishing the validity of a concept but it isn't enough alone. For example we can use it to rule out a flat sphere but not a purple cat.But you seem to be stuck at this point without going on to the rest of the process.BTW, a flat sphere is possible if it is represented on a 2D plane such as a sheet of paper or a video screen. Afterall, to you a representive of something is just as valid as the thing itself, because all you need is faith that it is true. Have you read this yet? http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.mvThis is basically what you are asking me to do.Not necessarily because I am using more than modal logic. However modal logic undermines strong atheism. I may not believe in a tooth fairy but if there were a church that did it would be inappropriate to argue that they were incorrect, *and* my position would be as weak as their own and could only end in a stalemate (lack of evidence). Just because some may set up a church around a belief that that makes it true?Did you know that there is a religion setup around Elvis? Is he god?
Though, unlike your god the existence of Elvis can quite easily be proven without resorting to meaningless logic and word games. The inherent problem with using the tooth fairy as an analogy, and you apparently haven't noticed this, is that the tooth fairy hypothesis for the disappearance of childrens' teeth is testable and therefore not "really" supernatural...at least not without modification to the concept of the toothfairy (like providing it with omnicisience and omnipotence, ie, giving it the specific parameters assigned to God).There are more than one child at a time who lose their teeth and place then under the pillow so the tooth fairy must be in all places at once and know of every tooth lost, the same sort of assertion of your god.Or, I could use the excuse that the tooth fairy works through the parents. Does this sound familiar? An a posteriori truth can be determined by experience. This is that highly subjective spirit witness thing that you reject. Is that a real physical experience which can be confirmed by objective means or an imaginary mental one which can't be and very well be a delusion? If mental than all dreams are true by your reasoning.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-15-2002]

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:NOTE ANSWER IS WITHIN MAGESTERIUM OF RELIGION OR [MOR]

​

I once read that the founder of a certain religion - said the "Quickest way to get rich is to found your own religion". I will not state the religion here in case there is anybody from that religion. And that religion does pour in the money. And the founder is living it rich.That was L. Ron Hubbard, a second rate SF writer, and the religion he made up was $cientology. He was living it rich, but he is dead now.My personal opinion is that we all found our personal religions. How many people you do you that have combined many religions into one that means much to them. I have never met a Christain that was 100% Christain. NOTE I AM AN ATHEIST.They're all 100% Christian since they all cut&paste everypart of their belief system. Or in other words they create their god in their own image.

Originally posted by gene90:Then you would have a representation of a sphere, not a true sphere. A flat sphere is a contradiction by most definitions of a sphere. We could play word games and imply that the representation of a sphere is a "virtual sphere" or we could imitate Plato (I think) and imply that no spheres in our world are real spheres but imitations of the sphere ideal, which only fits the definition of a sphere and therefore the 'flat sphere' is a representation of a representation and somewhat moot. I see that you're unwilling to accept the possibility. Hank doesn't have a spiritual witness. You do know that this is a parody of Christian missionaries who go door to door trying to get others to believe in their god? You are basically asking me to believe in something which can't be proven to exist in any reasonable way. You want me to kiss Hank's ass for some fictitious reward or get some imaginary punishment.Not necessarily true, but necessarily impossible to prove false.All religious beliefs are equal, equally delusional. Therefore atheism is not founded upon logic. In fact the entire position of atheism makes no sense to me at all.That maybe, but for one thing, atheism is not a cohesive belief system such as Christianity is. There are no common rites, rituals, or set dogma. What one atheist may believe or do is totally irrelevant to what another may believe or do, unlike with theists who have to answer to their god.Not as easily as you might think. I say that because there would be believers that there was never any Elvis willing to claim anything no matter how strange: for example, that the guy shaking his pelvis in all the old Elvis videos was William Shakespeare. Hardly. Good try though.Which would be valid so long as it is taken in context. Similar to saying that all dreams are real, as they are all physical phenomena of the brain. Dreams are nothing more than random neuron firing and the images are just the brain trying to handle it.However you would, again, have to include God-like parameters in the toothfairy construct.There are as I had pointed out.It cannot be "imaginary" because it implies that the experience is invalid and an a posteriori truth must be correct to be sound.Exactly. So, where is your proof?That would require the "imaginary" to be of equal value as the "real".You seem to think that it is since you're the one who has a "spirit witness". Is that like an imaginary friend that some children have?Also you're flirting with circularity here.Please, get real.If you want to conclude that God is not an a posteriori truth in order to support the belief that there is no God, then you must conclude that all witnesses of God are either imaginary or false, and the only clear support for either assertion is the use of the nonexistance of God as an axiom. Meaningless.But all dreams are true, in their own context, because they happen. Relevancy of dream material to the waking world is a different matter.Only to a person who can't tell the different between reality and a dream. When I dream I know that I'm dreaming.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-15-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:[non sequitur content deleted]I'm making a plea to invoke the Kent Hovind clause on ad-hominems. And besides I think that getting one of us a 48-hour suspension will probably contribute to the quality of this forum far more than attempting to have an actual debate with you, an attempt that has failed with surprising consistency since you arrived.If one can't express an honest opinion on here than it may as well be a theocracy. I keep asking you for credible, verifible, and unbiased evidence for your beliefs and all you give me back are fairy tales and an imaginary friend and you expect me to take you seriously. I don't want to "kiss Hank's ass", even though you keep asking me to. You're almost as bad as Wordswordsman.[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-18-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:The terrible fact is that I'm not particularly interested in your *opinion*; or anyone elses'. I want to hear why you are right and why I am wrong. That's why I'm here, not for one-liners and snide comments. Yeah I said opinions are part of this, in that your opinion is your thesis for your argument (hopefully about a paragraph in length) consisting of valid logical structures.How can I talk of logic to someone who has an imaginary friend and worships an invisible sky father and can't provide one bit of credible, verifible, nor unbiased evidence to back up anything he says. Logic and word games are not proof in and of themselves.
Hey, that was a paragraph. Sometime back around Day 1 I informed you that this is essentially theology we are debating, and not science, therefore scientific evidence is right out the window.It doesn't have to be scientific, just credible.However when you said that JS came from back from the dead to write a Civil War prophecy after the fact then surely you could have found some historical evidence for that. None. Bald assertion.Here you are imagining things. I never said any such thing. You don't have any proof that he actually wrote any of it himself.When you implied that the Church revised its history you offered no historical evidence. It was another bald assertion.Please, it is a common tactic to make themselves look better.When you stated that Shakespeare translated the KJV you not only presented no evidence you got rebuffed by a fellow non-theist.I had said that he helped in its translation not that he translated the whole thing. This had mostly been suspressed.See, these are yet more bald assertions. Prove me wrong, show me your so-called "spirit witness"?

Originally posted by gene90:What about those prophecies? Prior to the war they were printed out on cards entitled "The Pearl of the Great Price" and used by missionaries throughout the US and England. Also they were recorded in the journals kept by those missionaries. Finally it can be found in the 1856 edition of Doctrine and Covenants and forward-- some copies of which are still in private hands, other copies of which are most likely to be found in the collections of secular libraries. Even if the Church did revise its history those sources could not have been altered. And if that isn't enough for you, check the "Journal History" of the Philadelphia Sunday Mercury for 5 May 1861 -- about the time of the onset of the war -- and find the following quote:

​

"We have in our possession a pamphlet, published at Liverpool, in 1851.... In view of our present troubles, this prediction seems to be in progress of fulfillment, whether Joe Smith was a humbug or not.... Have we not had a prophet among us?".

​

Pulled from the following (biased) site:
LDS FAQ: Fulfilled Prophecies of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet

​

Now, where is your evidence that Smith did not write that, and where is your evidence of revision?They are not about to say "Yes, we have revised this, but we still want you to accept it as the truth..."You don't have proof that Hammurabi had anything to do with his Code, and that was thousands of years ago, yet it is taken at face value. We have first-hand accounts of historical witnesses to church history, and it was only in 1832.Apples and oranges again.Show me a tau lepton. You know how to find the effects of the spirit you just won't actually go about it. Easy, is there a super collider around where you live?http://www.slac.stanford.edu/slac/hottopic/mperl95/tau.htmlAnd how do I go about finding this "spirit"? What are it's physical properties? Or it's energy state? Oh, I almost forgot, all I have to do is believe that your "spirit" is real and it will be real. No other proof is needed. (Note: Sarcasm)[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-19-2002]