|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: My Beliefs- GDR | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
The human body.
That’s fine but can you give me an example of what molecular arrangement I’m saying needs intelligent intervention.? GDR writes:
All of the objective evidence is that resurrection of a human body is impossible. That doesn't prove the negative but it outweighs a handful of second-hand "eyewitness" reports.
On the other hand there is no objective evidence to say that it is impossible. GDR writes:
You're throwing objectivity right out the window. You're claiming that a Hindu, for example, who witnessed the same events could not possibly interpret them the same way.
Secondly if someone else viewed the resurrection then they would no longer be unbiased. GDR writes:
So tell us what that reasoning is. Why God? Why not the Tooth Fairy?
I have used subjective reasoning and a subjective take on personal experience to come to my theistic beliefs and I have used subjective reasoning to conclude that the tooth fairy doesn’t exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
The phrase "contrary to natural law" in itself throws the possibility of objectivity out the window.
The claim is that this was a one time occurrence in human history and that it is contrary to natural law. GDR writes:
Do you really have enough other examples of 1st-century Jewish writings to know what to expect? Would they have had a clear idea of how to propagate something like a messianic myth?
It is a matter of faith or belief but I also think that we should look at the style, intent, and content of the Gospels. They aren't written in anything like the style that we would expect a 1st century Jew to write if they were trying to perpetuate the messianic mission of Jesus. The disciples were badly flawed and the resurrection itself is unlike anything that they would have expected. GDR writes:
I have no problem with you holding that belief. What I object to is your claim that other historical events such as the Battle of Hastings are a matter of faith and belief to the same exrent.
However it is a matter of faith and belief and I believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is an actual historical event. GDR writes:
Why not? It isn't observing the same events that causes biased conclusions; it's interpreting those events according to preconceived notions. If I saw what others called a "resurrection" I wouldn't automatically interpret it as a resurrection, an event that was "contrary to natural law". I'd look for an explanation within natural law.
No, I'm saying that a Hindu who witnessed the death and resurrection of Jesus and then wrote about it would no longer be unbiased by your definition. GDR writes:
On the contrary, I "follow Jesus" to a certain extent and I don't even believe he existed, much less rose from the dead. To follow somebody is to go in the direction they are going, even if the accounts of their going are fiction.
There is no motivation for anyone to follow Jesus after the crucifixion without the resurrection. GDR writes:
There are plenty of them in children's books. You're not really in a position to decide that the authors of those books are less serious than the authors of the gospels.
There are no accounts of anybody seriously contending that the tooth fairy exists. GDR writes:
There are plenty of accounts of adults being converted to equally outlandish beliefs such as Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnessism. There's no real difference between any of them and your beliefs.
There are no accounts of any adult being converted to belief in the tooth fairy. GDR writes:
There are plenty of things that your beliefs don't explain. You use "unexplainable" as an excuse all the time.
The tooth fairy does not provide and explanation for intelligent existence nor for morality. GDR writes:
You've had life experiences that "cause" you to believe in the religion that just by sheer coincidence happens to be ubiquitously dominant in your society. If you had grown up in Utah, you'd probably be an equally-convinced Mormon. I have not had any life experience that leads me to believe in the tooth fairy. If Tooth Fairyism was the dominant religion in your society, you'd be a Tooth Fairyist for the same "reasons" that you're a Christian. I don't call that a distinction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
Have you seen (or read) The Last Temptation of Christ? Jesus comes down from the cross and lives a long life, married with children. At one point he meets Paul and is outraged that Paul is preaching his death and resurrection. Paul laughs and says that it doesn't matter a bit whether Jesus rose from the dead. What matters is that the people believe he did. Paul would have had tyo be convinced by eye-witnesses that this really happened to the point that he gave up a life of position in the community to become a travelling evangelist largely dependent on others for food and shelter. He also spent considerable time in prison, suffered abuse and was eventually put to death. As for the hardships he suffered, Paul wouldn't be the last televangelist to miscalculate the outcome of his ambition.
GDR writes:
And if you interpret them honestly, the most likely interpretation would be that he was never really dead. (Jesus "died" suspiciously quickly for a crucifixion.) You yourself would come to that conclusion if you witnessed a purported resurrection.
If you had seen someone dead and the then three days later see them walking around in a body that was the same but then not quite the same either you then start interpreting those events, whether you were a Hindu or a Jew. GDR writes:
But they didn't, really, did they? Many professing Christians "follow" him less than I do. Their belief has no real significance. They believed certain things about Jesus that caused them to follow Him in ways that went beyond His moral message. People will do all sorts of things, good and bad, in the name of belief but their behaviour has no bearing on the legitimacy of their beliefs.
GDR writes:
That's my point. You've arbitrarily chosen one flavour over another. There is no inherent difference between the flavours.
I can't prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. It is my belief that he doesn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
Who said anything about evidence? It's a response to your claim that Paul "would have" done this or that. It's an alternate scenario of what he "would have" done.
So your evidence is a fictional story written in the 20th century. What’s your point? GDR writes:
Most televangelists are "obviously" humble - but they're pretty good actors too. You really should stop pretending to know what Paul "would have" done.
Well Paul did pre-date television by a few years but aside from that when you read his letters it is obvious that he isn’t ambitious. If he had been ambitious he would stayed as he was. GDR writes:
Crucifixion was a deliberately slow form of execution. If Jesus died that quickly, the Romans failed in their purpose.
Firstly, the Romans were really good at killing people. Secondly Jesus had been brutally beaten and yet 3 days later He is completely rejuvenated. GDR writes:
Well, woo... woo. The claim ever was that Jesus had come back in the way that Lazarus did. Jesus came back with a different kind of physicality. As I said, if you witnessed those events, you wouldn't honestly say that it was a "different kind of physicality". You'd say it was a scam. (By the way, a "different kind of physicality" doesn't count as a resurrection, as far as I'm concerned.)
GDR writes:
Thanks. I will - at least until somebody is able to show a distinction.
If you want to compare belief in the tooth fairy to Christianity feel free.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
1.61803 writes:
Well, the Jews had a "hot date" with the Sabbath that night. They were the ones who wanted to hurry it up. And the Romans didn't do anything to hurry it up. They were prepared to break Jesus' legs at the Jews' request but they didn't need to; he was already dead. Maybe the soldiers had some hot dates that night. Or perhaps they had so many cruxifixions scheduled they needed the cross sooner than later. Lumber was at a all time scarcity since Rome came to town with their cruxifixion practices. It's a bit of an anti-climax, like a guy dying of natural causes on death row.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
When choosing between Paul's fictional account and Kazantzakis' fictional account, I go with the fact that Kazantzakis had a lot more historical information available to him. Whether he used it or not I don't know but yes, he did have the potential for a more authentic fictional account.
So rather than Paul’s own account as well as Luke’s you choose to propose 20th century fiction. GDR writes:
You're embellishing.
They were the experts and they declared Him dead. So now you have a badly beaten man, erroneously declared dead, moving a heavy stone away from the tomb that was being guarded by Roman soldiers. Maybe you do believe in the tooth fairy after all.
GDR writes:
I have had experiences to which my reaction was, "That couldn't have happened - but it did." In those circumstances, I don't jump to the conclusion that the laws of nature have somehow been suspended before my very eyes. I conclude that I didn't really see what I thought I saw.
If you are an eye-witness of Jesus being alive after being dead, and appearing in a room that had been locked you might think that this is more than a scam. The whole account is written in a way that says — I know this sounds strange but this is what happened. GDR writes:
I look at it the same way.
Frankly I appreciate your posts because they make me think through just what it is I believe which is always a good thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
Fiction isn't "lying" nor is it "wrong". If you and the young-earth creationists had more respect for fiction, you'd have a better understanding of the Bible. Kazantzakis’s was intended as fiction whereas Paul’s writing wasn’t. It is a case of believing it, believing that he believed but was wrong or that he was lying. There has always been a fine line between fiction and non-fiction. Fiction is often presented as an eyewitness account. There is no particular reason to think that the New Testament was "intended" as something significantly different from Robinson Crusoe or Kidnapped. (If anything, the New Testament is more like propaganda, which is closer to intentional deception than fiction is.)
GDR writes:
The premise doesn't just come out of thin air. Like all good assumptions, it's the conclusion of previous investigation and reasoning. Unless we know that a resurrection is possible, it is improper to use resurrection as a premise.
If you start with the premise that the resurrection is impossible then of course any explanation is better than what we see in the Gospels. GDR writes:
The same argument would apply to a young earth, the Flood, etc. Why are the accounts in the Old Testament less reliable than the accounts in the New Testament?
If however you start from a theistic position then the resurrection, IMHO, is the most reasonable scenario.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
Why does their belief have to be literally true? And why isn't it clear that the Old Testament writers believed what they wrote?
IMHO it is very clear that the Gospel writers believed what they wrote. GDR writes:
It also depends on what "essence" means. The essence of Robinson Crusoe isn't that the character Robinson Crusoe actually existed. Why does the essence of the gospel have to be that Jesus existed? Why can't the essence of Genesis be that the world is 6000 years old?
I just don't see any reasonable argument that they didn't believe the essence of what they were writing about. GDR writes:
I do accept the possibility of theistic beliefs. I also accept the possibility of nuclear fusion as an economical energy supply. I also accept the possibility of Bigfoot. What I don't accept is the reality of any of those things - beause there is no evidence at this time that any of those things exist. If evidence for any of them is discovered, I'll be glad to accept them. I agree. Before you can accept the resurrection as possible you have to be willing to accept the possibility of theistic beliefs. The problem is that theistic believers tend to define any possible evidence out of existence: "God can not be detected by material means." You're condemning your belief to perpetually be a belief that can never become a fact.
GDR writes:
Resurrection is also verifiable. If it can ignore the laws of nature, so can the flood.
Well for one thing the flood, young earth etc are verifiable. GDR writes:
The flood account had to originate from eyewitness accounts too (unless it was inspired by God directly into Moses' brain). And eyewitness accounts are known to be the least reliable form of evidence.
Also the stories of the resurrection were written from the accounts of eye witnesses at a time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
It seems that I'm more of a believer than you are, then. I certainly don't need the resurrection to find value in the New Testament.
...the one ting that it is clear that it all hangs on is the bodily resurrection of Jesus. GDR writes:
Once again, there is a vast difference between a historical event such as the Battle of Hastings, with multiple lines of evidence, including physical evidence, and the hearsay stories in the Bible which rest on nothing but belief.
There are any number of historical events that can't be proven as fact. but we believe them. GDR writes:
If something cannot be confirmed, tested, etc. it isn't "factually correct". It may happen to coincide with the facts; it may eventually be confirmed to be a fact but until it is confirmed it isn't really a fact.
Beliefs can be factual correct even if they can't be proven. GDR writes:
I have a book that purports to be the real biography of James Bond. There is no indication whatsoever that it's fiction. Is that any reason to believe that James Bond is real? Is there any reason why somebody couldn't base their understanding of life on it?
There was never any claim that Robinson Crusoe was anything but fiction and nobody ever based their understanding of life on it. GDR writes:
I didn't ask you what you think the essense of Genesis is. This is what I asked you:
I would say that the essence of Genesis is that we are created beings and that there is a standard of behaviour that we should adhere to.quote:I'm asking why you cherry-pick one fictional acount to believe and reject the others. GDR writes:
Easy. Go to a cemetery and wait three days after a funeral. You can verify statistically the worldwide rate of resurrection the same way you can verify the worldwide population of fairies.
How is resurrection verifiabl? GDR writes:
So you have eyewitnesses in the New Testament who agree that they thought Jesus was dead and then they thought they saw him alive. The problem with eyewitnesses is that they tell you what they thought they saw, not what actually happened.
Why are eyewitness accounts the least reliable. Sure you can have people argue about the details of an accident but they will all agree that an accident happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
GDR writes:
So would I. The message is more important than the messenger.
The difference is though that without the resurrection the words of Jesus are no more authoritative than Buddha or Mahatma Gandhi. Actually if the resurrection didn't happen I would give more credence to Gandhi as he is more current. GDR writes:
The disciples misunderstood the message because they put too much emphasis on the messenger. If they had internalized the message properly, deserting the messenger would have been irrelevant. You're taking the disciples' desertion as a sign of authenticity when you should be taking it as a sign that the messenger isn't the theme of the story.
The accounts of Jesus having Him sweating blood in fear and have the disciples consistently misunderstanding the message and even deserting Him at the end. GDR writes:
But knowledge isn't knowledge until we know it. Until we know something is "factually correct", it isn't. It is hypothetical and may be correct or not.
Just because we don’t know something to be factual doesn’t mean that it isn’t. It is a fact that the world was round before anybody ever figured it out. GDR writes:
That isn't obvious at all.
The NT is written by various authors who obviously intended it as non-fiction. GDR writes:
As I already mentioned, with reference to The Last Temptation of Christ, Paul's actions work equally well whether Jesus existed or not.
The disciples, Paul and others obviously based their world view and understanding of life from the life of Jesus and their understanding of how Jesus was related to the Hebrew Scriptures. GDR writes:
But you don't know their intentions.
I believe that the accounts should be read in light of how the author intended while keeping in mind the cultural context. GDR writes:
You asked how resurrection is verifiable and I told you. If you're just going to dismiss verification, you might as well dismiss it for evolution too.
The whole point of the resurrection account is that it was unique. GDR writes:
They agree that it looked like an accident. The gospel writers agreed that it looked like Jesus was dead and then later it looked like he was alive. Eyewitnesses are unreliable not only because they disagree on details but also because they jump to conclusions. And people living in a similar cultural context are likely to jump to similar conclusions.
As I've said before when you have witnesses to an accident they will disagree on details but they will all agree that an accident happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
But it makes no difference whether the message was the word of God or the word of man. The message is the message. It has the same value regardless of its origin.
The difference is that the resurrection confirms that Jesus' message was not just a human construct but was a message that was the incarnate Word of God. GDR writes:
And putting the messenger before the message is the chief obstacle to implementing the message.
There are two aspects to the message of Jesus. The first is the message of love, peace and justice. Secondly however was the establishment of the Kingdom which would be comprised of His followers that would be charged with taking His story to the world and by making His peace, love and justice the foundational aspects of their lives. GDR writes:
So how do you "know" that something is a "fact"?
Knowledge is not the same as fact. GDR writes:
Nobody said they "thought" they were writing fiction. The modern concept of fiction wasn't even defined at the time. There may be some legendary aspects to the Gospels that would be obvious to a 1st century Jew and not to us, but I find it difficult to believe that with everything considered that it can be reasonably argued that they thought they were writing fiction. They wrote what they wrote for a purpose and it's naive to assume that that purpose was a simple narration of events that they had witnessed.
GDR writes:
Then the word "verify" is worthless. The Flood could just as well be a one-time miraculous event. Even if we can prove that it never happened, you're just as free to believe that it did.
The fact that we can confirm that when people die they stay dead in all cases that we can verify, does not verify that a one time event which isn't consistent with what we can observe today didn't happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
Because of what He said. If what He said had any value, it doesn't matter who said it.
Why would we take what He said seriously. GDR writes:
No you don't. If you understand the message, you can see its value. But if you waste your time showering the messenger with praise and gifts, you lose your chance to implement the message:
I'm not sure what you mean by that but in order to hear the message you have to believe that the messenger is worth listening to.Messenger: General GDR, I have an urgent message from the Emperor Napoleon. He wants you to move your division to the right flank to block Wellington's attack. GDR: Welcome, oh great Messenger. Have some food and drink. Tell us of all the wonderful happenings in the capital. Messenger: But the battle..... GDR: Never mind that. The Emperor is so great and he has sent you directly to me. I am so honoured. Messenger: But not honoured enough to.... GDR: Come, come. You must be very tired. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. Messenger: Today we die, unless.... GDR writes:
Exactly. We can't "know" it in the same way we actually know things. It isn't a "fact" in the same way that facts are actually facts. It's just a belief in the same way that belief in the Tooth Fairy is a belief.
It simply means that we can't know it in the same way, and that we make up our own minds whether to believe it or not. GDR writes:
But you don't know what they believed. You only believe they believed what they wrote. The Old Testament authors most likely believed what they wrote about the creation and the flood with equal conviction, yet you can accept them being wrong. Why can't you accept the New Testament authors being wrong?
They believed that the resurrection happened and they gave as good an account of what Jesus said and did as they were able. GDR writes:
So there really are no differences. Neither story can be proven. Both require a suspension of the laws of nature and a coverup of the contrary evidence. Both boil down to a believe-it-or-not, flip-a-coin choice. Jews believe the flood but not the resurrection. You believe the resurrection but not the flood. Tie game. There are many differences though. The flood story was written centuries after it is supposed to have occurred and all the geological and DNA evidence refutes it ever happening. The only evidence against the resurrection is the fact that we have not witnessed it happening again and that it requires a suspension of the laws of nature as we understand them. The accounts were written during the life times of some the eye-witnesses and the accounts are written by several different authors. Again though, it can't be proven so we will all choose what we are going to believe about the accounts that we have. At least Jewish children and Gentile children are in agreement about the Tooth Fairy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
GDR writes:
Again, you're putting the messenger above the message. We don't have to give equal weight to everything he said. We can see what has value and what doesn't. It wasn't just about loving your neighbour. He mad claims about His relationship with God the Father, He essentially claimed to be speaking on behalf of God, He made anti-revolutionary statements etc. When the messenger brought you instructions to reinforce the right flank, you could see that the right flank was in danger of collapsing. You didn't need details on who else thought it was collapsing.
GDR writes:
But serving Him "by" serving the community is irrelevant. Serving the community is what counts. If God approves, fine, but it doesn't really matter. His approval is as useless to us as our "service" is to Him.
I believed that part of the message is that we are to serve Him by serving all creation as community. GDR writes:
You've already admitted that that isn't true. Many people manage to love their neighbours without believing in your God. If He's empowering them invisibly in the background, it doesn't matter. What matters is that they are empowered, not how they're empowered.
... through worship we learn that we only able to love because He loved us first. GDR writes:
Evidence is not subjective.
Some beliefs are more evidenced than others even if the evidence is subjective. GDR writes:
I could accept that the New Testament authors were right and the Old Testament authors were wrong. I don't accept it because there's no real distinction between them. The only way you seem to be able to distinguish them is that the New Testament "rings true".
Why can't you accept that they were right? GDR writes:
Only if you cherry-pick what the "essential elements" are. The NT writers are consistent about the essential elements.... The Old Testament writers are also consistent about the Flood. So are the New Testament writers, for that matter. Yet you reject one miracle and accept another.
GDR writes:
On the contrary, magicians do much more impressive tricks every day and their audiences are consistently mistaken. It's a whole industry.
... it is pretty hard to be mistaken about seeing Jesus resurrected after seeing Him dead on a cross and buried. GDR writes:
It isn't about being Jewish. Well I'm quite sure that not all Jews believe in a literal world-wide flood and all the original believers in the resurrection of Jesus were Jewish. Allow me to rephrase:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Theodoric writes:
Notice that I said "you" have eyewitnesses, not "we" have eyewitnesses. I was addressing GDR's claim, taking it as a given if you like. The key in the sentence you quoted is that even if the eyewitnesses did exist, they only reported what they thought they saw. Eyewitness testimony is not evidence that anybody actually did see anything.
ringo writes:
Really? Who?
So you have eyewitnesses in the New Testament who agree that they thought Jesus was dead and then they thought they saw him alive.Not really eyewitnesses if we have no evidence they existed either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
That's it exactly. We have to decide the value of the message. If the messenger appears to be crazy, we might be inclined to discount the message - but if it's a matter of life and death we still have to consider that possibility that a crazy messenger might have an important message. Or, a messenger who appears to be sane might bring a crazy message. Of course the message is important but if the messenger is a crazed individual with a messianic complex we might not to be inclined to believe that our right flank is in any danger at all. The message is all-important. It effects what we do. The messenger is only one possible indicator of the value of the message.
GDR writes:
The ultimate act of selflessness would be giving up your seat in heaven for, say, Martin Bormann. That's what Jesus wants.
As I have said numerous times it is about loving others unselfishly. GDR writes:
So you're saying that Christianity is a kind of special-ed program for the sellessness-challenged.
That doesn't mean that a Christian is going to behave more selflessly than his atheistic neighbour but it should mean that he will behave more selflessly than he would have if he hadn't accepted Jesus as Lord. GDR writes:
And the intangibles are not evidence.
We can argue about whether Bobby Orr was a better hockey player than Gordie Howe. We can look at the objective evidence such as goals scored etc but then there are the intangibles like how their play affected the physiology of their opposition that help us form our subjective conclusions. GDR writes:
The charlatans don't.
Magicians all acknowledge it is an illusion. GDR writes:
As I've already said, maybe there was no body. The lack of a body is an indication that the death didn't happen. Covering up a faked death is certainly more plausible than an alien abduction.
In the case of the resurrection there is no evidence to cover-up. Actually when people started claiming that the resurrection had taken place then why didn't the Romans or anyone else produce the body which would have put an end to the whole thing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024