I don’t know which holy man you mean, but if you mean Jesus then yes I believe they happened.
No. Yo said you believe in the possiblity of miracles because you believe in god.
So fine, but, does this mean you accept the possibility of ANY miracle from ANY source, including medicine men (or holymen) from different parts of Asia who have claimed to cure people miraculously?
What is you criteria for accepting miracles?
However, my point was that if the first Christians were going to make it up it would be based on Jewish texts alone.
Not so at all, since those who wrote the stories were themselves Jewish. They heard all the stories of the Egyptian and Greek gods. There is no reason to think they didn't pull stories from those sources.
That sounds more like reincarnation.
So does the Jesus story. It's a grey area as to what you call it, because the story is rewitten to sound unique. But like I said, you can't change the car and claim it's not Back to the Future.
quote:We’re in one of the richest countries in the world, and yet the minimum wage is lower than it was thirty five years ago. There are homeless people everywhere. This homeless guy asked me for money the other day. I was about to give it to him and then I thought he was going to use it on drugs or alcohol. And then I thought, that’s what I’m gonna to use it on. Why am I judging this poor bastard. People love to judge homeless guys. Like if you give them money they’re just going to waste it hes gonna waste the money. Well, he lives in a box, what do you want him to do? Save it up and buy a wall unit? Take a little run to the store for a throw rug and a CD rack? He’s homeless. I walked behind this guy the other day. A homeless guy asking for money. He looks right at the homeless guy and says why don’t you go get a job you bum. People always say that to homeless guys like it's always that easy. This homeless guy was wearing his underwear outside his pants. I’m guessing his resume isn’t all up to date. I’m predicting some problems during the interview process. I’m pretty sure even McDonalds has a underwear goes inside the pants policy. Not that they enforce it very strictly, but technically I’m sure it is on the books.
You say you're more inclined to care about god because the books talk about life after death. Ok, that's a fair point. But it only becomes a concern once you've placed faith in what is written in those books. So it really isn't anything to be concerned about, but you've decided to make it a point of concern. To each his own.
Actually I wasn't talking about myself when I mentioned life after death. I was talking from your point of view. I can see why a non-believer would think that people become Christian so that they live forever and when you look at some versions of the Christian faith I see why they would think that way.
Maybe I was being too subtle but essentially I was agreeing with your argument about people believing what they want to be true. I don't disagree with that but just because we want something to be true doesn't meant that it isn't. In the example I used maybe that person actually will win the lottery.
As far as time going by without a sighting is concerned I agree that works for Bigfoot but I don't see how that is relevant when it comes to God. I have zero anticipation of having a God sighting.
oni writes:
This could just be a byproduct of having created god's that punish people - we've had these stories in our culture for 5000 years, or more. You can't be certain this isn't a culturally influenced sense of justice.
But that makes my point. We have had from the beginning the desire that there be justice. Certainly we have had human concepts of justice and how it should be imposed but that isn't the point. The point is that we have an inner yearning for justice to be done. Yes i would agree that our understanding of what is just is culturally influenced but I think that the deep seated desire that most people have is something more and different than that.
oni writes:
Yes, it could be cognitive dissonance that causes Christians like myself to believe that life does have ultimate meaning, and I can’t prove that it isn’t the case.
As far as time going by without a sighting is concerned I agree that works for Bigfoot but I don't see how that is relevant when it comes to God. I have zero anticipation of having a God sighting.
You do have a habit of taking things out of context and then arguing the point.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
No. Yo said you believe in the possiblity of miracles because you believe in god.
So fine, but, does this mean you accept the possibility of ANY miracle from ANY source, including medicine men (or holymen) from different parts of Asia who have claimed to cure people miraculously?
What is you criteria for accepting miracles?
I have no criteria. As far as the source is concerned, as far as I'm concerned there is only the possible source which is God. If God chooses to work through holy men in parts of Asia who I am to say He can't do it.
oni writes:
So does the Jesus story. It's a grey area as to what you call it, because the story is rewitten to sound unique. But like I said, you can't change the car and claim it's not Back to the Future.
The difference is obvious and I have pointed it out, so there really isn't anything more that I can say.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
The reason the Bigfoot example is being pursued is because you have persistently said in this thread (and others) that one’s conclusions stem from one’s starting premise.
Let’s say that person A goes missing in an area potentially inhabited by Bigfoot. Let’s also say that some livestock are killed in that same area in ways which seem a bit odd. Savagely ravaged carcasses — That sort of thing.
If one starts from the premise that Bigfoot exists it might seem reasonable to attribute these phenomena to the actions of Bigfoot. Indeed if one is so inclined one could cite these seemingly mysterious phenomena as supportive of a belief in the existence of Bigfoot.
However those who are more sceptical would put forward more mundane explanations for these phenomena and would dispute that they can be legitimately ascribed to the activities of Bigfoot.
In your view are those who attribute the above phenomena to Bigfoot any more or less ‘putting the cart before the horse’ than those who do not? Can you see why the comparison is relevant to the subject at hand?
We have had from the beginning the desire that there be justice.
What "beginning" are you refering to? Humans? Homo-erectus? Or all the way back to hominids?
I don't believe hominids had this sense of justice since they were mostly trying not to starve, got around in small groups and never owned anything. Maybe like chimps, they were jealous or envious, but I don't think "sense of justice" is correct for our early ancestors. This is something that gets introduced into our culture later.
That's why I feel justice is something found in larger socities, where there is law, property, and many groups living together. Coincidently, this is also when religions make their appearance too.
I have zero anticipation of having a God sighting.
You do have a habit of taking things out of context and then arguing the point.
People claimed they saw Jesus - god - one and the same I'm told.
If memory serves me right, you guys are waiting for the return of your god, Jesus, yes?
So how long do you wait before this:
quote:The more time that goes by without a confirmed sighting the less plausible its existence becomes.
Becomes the logical conclusion, much in the same way as you've applied it to bigfoot?
If God chooses to work through holy men in parts of Asia who I am to say He can't do it.
So you believe any story about a miracle happening? You're not skeptical of any?
My point is, as you evade every possible question, how do you judge claims of miracles happening? Or do you just believe they're all real?
Are there any claims where you say "Ah that's probably bullshit. You can't wave your hand over a cancerous tumor and cure people" or something along those lines?
If there are cases in which you've said that's probably not true, how did you get to that conclusion? Was it the source of the claim or is it when someone claims they did something that defies the laws of nature?
What evidence do you require to believe a miracle happened? Is eye witness testimony alone good enough for you or do you need something more tangible?
The difference is obvious and I have pointed it out, so there really isn't anything more that I can say.
The difference may seem obvious to you but many scholars have in fact made the same conclusion I have. So it's much more obvious to many people that the stories are similar.
The r eason the Bigfoot example is being pursued is because you have persistently said in this thread (and others) that one’s conclusions stem from one’s starting premise. Let’s say that person A goes missing in an area potentially inhabited by Bigfoot. Let’s also say that some livestock are killed in that same area in ways which seem a bit odd. Savagely ravaged carcasses — That sort of thing. If one starts from the premise that Bigfoot exists it might seem reasonable to attribute these phenomena to the actions of Bigfoot. Indeed if one is so inclined one could cite these seemingly mysterious phenomena as supportive of a belief in the existence of Bigfoot. However those who are more sceptical would put forward more mundane explanations for these phenomena and would dispute that they can be legitimately ascribed to the activities of Bigfoot.
I completely agree with that and even tried to point out that in the case of believing in God as opposed to Bigfoot it is even more prone to thinking like that as Christianity is often, at least very often in the more fundamentalist groups, as being salvation focused. In the case of Bigfoot it’s interesting but in the end I’m ambivalent about whether he exists or not, but the argument can be made by oni, or yourself for that matter, that I believe because I get eternal life out of the deal. Unfortunately after I said that oni starts talking about me specifically believing for that reason.
Straggler writes:
In your view are those who attribute the above phenomena to Bigfoot any more or less ‘putting the cart before the horse’ than those w ho do not? Can you see why the comparison is relevant to the subject at hand?
Actually, I think those that don’t believe in Bigfoot are the ones that are putting the cart before the horse and not the other way around. The ones that start with the premise that Bigfoot doesn’t exist aren’t able to consider the possibility that it actually is Bigfoot. The ones who start with the premise that Bigfoot does exist are open to either possibility. It might be Bigfoot or another predator.
If anyone starts with the premise that God does not exist then the resurrection is an impossibility and there has to be another answer whether it is fraud, error or metaphor. If anyone starts with the premise that God exists then they are open to possibility, but definitely not the certainty, that the resurrection is true historically.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
If anyone starts with the premise that God does not exist then the resurrection is an impossibility and there has to be another answer whether it is fraud, error or metaphor. If anyone starts with the premise that God exists then they are open to possibility, but definitely not the certainty, that the resurrection is true historically.
Maybe this isn't on purpose, but you seem to be leaving out the following group. I assure you they are a very large group. Highly likely much larger than the group you describe above as "starting with the premise that God does not exist and therefore the resurrection is an impossibility":
Those that start with the premise that God does not exist, but are open to the possibility that God does exist, and the resurrection is also quite possible... they are also open to the possibility that many other explanations are possible. It would be clearer to state that they start with the premise that they do not know what happened... and are open to any and all possible explanations of what actually did happen.
Then they go looking for evidence to support any of the possible propositions.
Those that become supported by evidence gain in confidence. Those that do not become supported by evidence drop in confidence.
Those that never get any evidence at all... still never become "impossibilities"... simply just "so much less likely than the other explanations as to render them unworthy to spend too much time on until such time that evidence does come around to support them (if that ever happens)."
I actually think this is how most people go about pretty much every situation they ever come across (90%+). Seems to work pretty well for the Bigfoot issue, anyway.
I don't believe hominids had this sense of justice since they were mostly trying not to starve, got around in small groups and never owned anything. Maybe like chimps, they were jealous or envious, but I don't think "sense of justice" is correct for our early ancestors. This is something that gets introduced into our culture later.
That's why I feel justice is something found in larger socities, where there is law, property, and many groups living together. Coincidently, this is also when religions make their appearance too.
I'm actually in agreement with that. As I have said previously I believe that God works through human hearts minds and imaginations. If this is true we would expect to see these traits and beliefs evolving over time.
oni writes:
People claimed they saw Jesus - god - one and the same I'm told.
I see Jesus as the incarnation of the "Word of God' and the anointed one of God the Father who has been given authority by the Father.
oni writes:
If memory serves me right, you guys are waiting for the return of your god, Jesus, yes?
So how long do you wait before this:
As long as it takes.
I simply see it this way. We all know that this planet can't exist forever. The sun will burn out, we'll be hit by a massive asteroid or there it may will be that God will bring about a renewal or re-creation of the planet before that happens. I'm not concerned about how or when, but when it does happen I do believe that in this new creation Jesus will rule sacrificially and suffering and death will not be part of it.
GDR writes:
The more time that goes by without a confirmed sighting the less plausible its existence becomes.
onifre writes:
Becomes the logical conclusion, much in the same way as you've applied it to bigfoot?
Actually the opposite is true. If God is a loving God as I propose then I would assume that He would want to keep this project going for as long as possible in order that as many people as possible will be included. If He shuts it down today then it's the end, and those that would otherwise have been born in 2014 and beyond just won't exist.
Jesus even said that no one including Himself knows when this will all take place.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
I'm not concerned about how or when, but when it does happen I do believe that in this new creation Jesus will rule sacrificially and suffering and death will not be part of it.
What does this mean? Specifically this part:
quote:Jesus will rule sacrificially...
I have a mental picture, but I do not think it is what you intended. I have this idea of Jesus ruling everyone and making animal sacrifices while doing so... not really sure why. Anyway, was wondering if you could explain since I'm fairly sure that you didn't intend to provide the mental picture I received.
Were you just trying to pay homage to the idea of Christ's sacrifice for humanity? "Ruling sacrificially" seems to have a present/future-tense to it and paying homage to what Jesus did has a past-tense to it... so I got confused.
As I have said previously I believe that God works through human hearts minds and imaginations. If this is true we would expect to see these traits and beliefs evolving over time.
For fuck sake is it something we've had since the beginning like you originally said or is it something that evolves over time? It can't be both!
I see Jesus as the incarnation of the "Word of God' and the anointed one of God the Father who has been given authority by the Father.
I don't know what any of that really means so I'm just going to go with Jesus is god also.
As long as it takes. I simply see it this way.
I'm sure you do, but you can then see why you're being a hypocrite with regards to god? You want to hold on to your beliefs so much that you're willing to suspend your own logic just to continue to believe.
I don't get how you guys could ever call this faith.
The rest of what you wrote has nothing to do with the discussion we're having about cognitive dissonance, reasoning and logic.
But I will comment on this one thing because I found it utterly ridiculous:
If He shuts it down today then it's the end, and those that would otherwise have been born in 2014 and beyond just won't exist.
By this logic he will never shut it down. But, it can't last forever like you said - wrath of god, rebirths and what not.
So which is it? Shut it down and some just won't exist or never shut it down so everyone can exist?
I think you see how illogical most of what you believe in is that when challenged you try so hard to rationalize it that you end up in a circle that you yourself can understand.
So you believe any story about a miracle happening? You're not skeptical of any?
I'm sceptical of all of them but I don't reject the possibility that they may be miracles.
onifre writes:
My point is, as you evade every possible question, how do you judge claims of miracles happening? Or do you just believe they're all real?
Are there any claims where you say "Ah that's probably bullshit. You can't wave your hand over a cancerous tumor and cure people" or something along those lines?
If there are cases in which you've said that's probably not true, how did you get to that conclusion? Was it the source of the claim or is it when someone claims they did something that defies the laws of nature?
What evidence do you require to believe a miracle happened? Is eye witness testimony alone good enough for you or do you need something more tangible?
Frankly I don't judge them. I'm just left wondering. I know you will tie this to the resurrection and I agree it is by faith, but I don't just decide that I believe it on faith without considering what the Bible has to say about it, and then going over what others have discerned from it as well.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
™ Version 4.2
