Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 61 of 511 (771562)
10-27-2015 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
10-26-2015 3:57 AM


Re: More evidence for the resurrection
Faith
Strange as the Gospel of Thomas has more of Jesus' true sayings than all your Gospels.
You do not like the idea that your religion only grew by killing other believers of other religious traditions.
Your religion was created out of murder and the fact that it is based on a barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that the guilty should profit from the torture and murder of an innocent man proves beyond a doubt that it is quite an immoral creed.
You can wash in Jesus' blood all you like but you will never be clean while remaining a Christian.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 10-26-2015 3:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 62 of 511 (771563)
10-27-2015 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Blue Jay
10-26-2015 1:50 PM


Blue Jay
"I never understood a "father complex" to be a "yearning for a father," but more of an influence of one's relationship (or lack thereof) with their father on their relationships with other people."
Our instincts are trying to make us the fittest of breed.
To do so, it would have us learn from the past, our fathers, as they were fit enough to reproduce which is natures number one priority as far as our generic line is concerned. Our instincts would then have us look at all the males we know so as to help us be more fit than they are so that we might become the Alpha male.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Blue Jay, posted 10-26-2015 1:50 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 511 (771565)
10-27-2015 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
10-26-2015 10:37 PM


Re: More evidence for the resurrection
It isn't the same thing.
Yes it is.
The gnostic gospels are discredited from many angles before we even get to Mary Magdalene.
* sigh *
But look, Faith, you said that no-one would make up a story giving a such a prominent place to women. But the Gospel of Mary gives an even more prominent place to women. And the Gospel of Mary is, by your own admission, made up. Therefore, people would make up a gospel in which women play a prominent role. We know that they would because they did. So you can't argue for the truth of the canonical gospels on the basis that no person would do such a thing, because you know that such a thing was in fact done by a person.
---
By analogy, suppose Obama was accused of illegally bugging his political opponents, and I argued against it on the grounds that "no American President would do such a thing". Then all you would have to do would be to whisper "Nixon. Watergate." I can't argue that no American President would do such a thing when we know perfectly well that an American President did.
This would leave open the question of whether Obama did it too, but it does completely destroy the particular argument I used.
---
In general, if an argument rests on saying "This thing could not occur", then we can destroy the argument by pointing to a case in which it occurred.
This is really not a difficult concept, and I don't see why I have had to spell it out at such great length.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 10-26-2015 10:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 10-27-2015 11:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 64 of 511 (771568)
10-27-2015 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by ICANT
10-26-2015 11:47 PM


Re: God
ICANT
Science says that before the big bang, all that is was compressed into about the size of a sugar cube, so your view of there being nothing is not what science is saying.
But if I follow your view of there having to be something to produce what is, then that logic would also have to apply to your God who, from your logic, could not exist without having something before him.
You ignore your own logic by saying God is supernatural. Which is an un-provable statement as we have no access to the supernatural.
"I call that supernatural power God, what do you call it?"
I call it you inventing a God of the Gaps.
I do not give science any more credibility for their view as they have yet to show why the big bang occurred so they too have Gods of the Gaps at the present time that they are calling string theory, branes and multi-verses.
You have decides to believe in the supernatural while I have decided to remain in the natural primarily because your God is showing less moral values than what man, a natural creature has designed.
Remember that your God began Christianity by basing it on a barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that the guilty should profit from your God having his own son needlessly murdered.
No moral man would do such a thing and therefore our moral sense is superior to your Gods.
You may keep your immoral God of the Gaps and in a sense, I will keep the scientific God of the Gaps which is natural as that God is superior in moral as compared to yours.
This second link is where I found that God. If you think that Jesus makes sense, then you might view the other links.
I am a Gnostic Christian, yes, but our beliefs are not what Christianity says they are. We lost the God wars and they distorted our belief system. The lies have been known since the findings of our scriptures and myths at Nag Hammadi.
Nag Hammadi Library
Gnostic Christianity is a teaching system from Jesus but not the one the church ever dares to teach. It frees us from religion and that is of course not what religions want. They never want the student to graduate as they might lose revenue and people.
Here is a bit of history as well as a nutshell version of how that freedom is gained.
Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers after God. God here I define as the best laws and rules to live life with.
We believe that those laws and rules, as Jesus said, are found in our minds/hearts. I use the following to try to illustrate this notion. A bit of history and then a mindset and method to do what I promote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&l...
The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=playe...
This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y
When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ICANT, posted 10-26-2015 11:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 10-27-2015 7:17 PM Greatest I am has replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 65 of 511 (771571)
10-27-2015 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Raphael
10-27-2015 12:52 AM


Raphael
"How do you account for the growth of the Christian church in general had neither of these phenomenon occurred?"
Please see post 58.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Raphael, posted 10-27-2015 12:52 AM Raphael has not replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 66 of 511 (771572)
10-27-2015 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by PaulK
10-27-2015 2:01 AM


PaulK
"There is not a lot of physical evidence for the Gospel's reliability. The number of manuscripts is only evidence for transmission, not that the original text was accurate."
And even those earlier text were likely plagiarized from what I believe to be my founders, the Chrestians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r...
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2015 2:01 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 273 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 67 of 511 (771573)
10-27-2015 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Straggler
10-27-2015 4:58 AM


Re: A Modern Ressurection
Straggler
That would depend if your mind set can believe in the supernatural or not.
VimeUhOh
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2015 4:58 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2015 3:51 PM Greatest I am has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 68 of 511 (771574)
10-27-2015 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Dr Adequate
10-27-2015 10:39 AM


Re: More evidence for the resurrection
But look, Faith, you said that no-one would make up a story giving a such a prominent place to women. But the Gospel of Mary gives an even more prominent place to women. And the Gospel of Mary is, by your own admission, made up. Therefore, people would make up a gospel in which women play a prominent role. We know that they would because they did. So you can't argue for the truth of the canonical gospels on the basis that no person would do such a thing, because you know that such a thing was in fact done by a person.
THe gnostic gospels FOLLOWED the true gospels and added their own made-up stuff to them. They USED Mary, they didn't report on anything she actually did, such as her having been chosen as witness to the resurrection.
In general, if an argument rests on saying "This thing could not occur", then we can destroy the argument by pointing to a case in which it occurred.
This is really not a difficult concept, and I don't see why I have had to spell it out at such great length.
I think you are making a merely sophistical point. "Nobody would make it up" would be true only of an authentic original writing by Jewish writers. I don't get why this is such a big logical thing to you. I get your logic but in the context it doesn't compute.
By your logic evidence for an authentic writing can be easily discredited by a copycat bogus writing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2015 10:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-27-2015 5:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 69 of 511 (771578)
10-27-2015 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Greatest I am
10-27-2015 10:10 AM


Constantine and Nicea
You don't need to tell me or anyone why we believe (which you did in the post about the Gospel of Thomas). I know why I believe and what I believe and I've heard all your gnostic stuff already.
As for Constantine, he did a lot to destroy the purity of the original church by aligning the Roman bishop with the powers of the Roman Empire, thus planting the seeds of Roman Catholicism, which corrupted that branch of the church until the Reformation (although true churches did remain outside that institution), but he did not determine the outcome of the Council of Nicea. There were hundreds of representatives of Christian churches from all over the then world at that council and they knew a heresy from the real thing. Constantine's role was to enforce it with the powers of the empire and start the downward slide of the Roman church into the worldly corruptions of the RCC.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Greatest I am, posted 10-27-2015 10:10 AM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Greatest I am, posted 10-28-2015 8:18 AM Faith has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 70 of 511 (771580)
10-27-2015 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by ICANT
10-26-2015 11:47 PM


Re: God
ICANT writes:
Before the universe there would have been an absence of anything. No space, time, matter, energy....
No God.
ICANT writes:
Now whatever caused the universe to have a beginning to exist from an absence of anything would be a supernatural power.
You're arbitrarily defining something "outside" the universe as "God". That's not a reason to think that a God exists. It's just a misunderstanding of what the universe is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by ICANT, posted 10-26-2015 11:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 10-27-2015 7:48 PM ringo has replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


(1)
Message 71 of 511 (771581)
10-27-2015 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Straggler
10-27-2015 4:58 AM


Re: A Modern Ressurection
A while ago my cat died. My kids were heartbroken. We buried her in the garden under a tree. Several days later the earth had been disturbed and the body had gone. Recently my kids (and their friends) are convinced that they have seen the cat frolicking in the park and following them to school.
Is there evidence that my cat has been resurrected from the dead?
Very interesting. I do not believe this is an accurate comparison and an oversimplification but I will still run with it .
I do not believe that is enough evidence to make that conclusion. However, let's take this a step further. What if your wife also complained that she constantly saw the cat? What if she also said she pet the cat, and noticed it has the same scars as the one yours had before it died? Then, your neighbor also confirmed that they have seen your cat, then your best friend. The evidence now points to the conclusion that either your cat was not dead in the first place, or something weird and supernatural is happening (this sort of thing happens all the time by the way).
The "onus" then, would lie on you to choose what to believe. So this argument leaves us at the same place: it is a personal belief issue.
Say you never saw the cat again and never quite figured out what happened, and told this story to your grandchildren. What would they think? What is right to believe? Even under the best circumstances, you would have to conclude that at the end of the day, you simply don't know. The fact would remain, though, that you actually have more positive evidence than negative, in the form of what your kids, wife, neighbor, and best friend all saw confirming that the cat did, indeed, resurrect.
Regards!
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2015 4:58 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by ringo, posted 10-27-2015 12:18 PM Raphael has not replied
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2015 12:28 PM Raphael has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 72 of 511 (771582)
10-27-2015 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Raphael
10-27-2015 12:12 PM


Re: A Modern Ressurection
Raphael writes:
Then, your neighbor also confirmed that they have seen your cat, then your best friend.
What if your neighbour said that a complete stranger had also seen your cat - but he couldn't show any evidence that that stranger ever existed? Because that's more like what we have with the Bible - a lot of second-hand, hearsay accounts with no real witnesses to cross-examine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Raphael, posted 10-27-2015 12:12 PM Raphael has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 73 of 511 (771585)
10-27-2015 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Raphael
10-27-2015 12:12 PM


Re: A Modern Ressurection
Stick with the scenario as it actually happened. It's a real situation. It doesn't require your hypothetical additions.
We have the absence of a body and some eyewitness testimony. We now also have a written record of the events.
Does the notion that my cat has been resurrected qualify as an as evidenced proposition? Or not? Can you explain your answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Raphael, posted 10-27-2015 12:12 PM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Raphael, posted 10-29-2015 5:30 AM Straggler has replied

  
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 74 of 511 (771586)
10-27-2015 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by PaulK
10-27-2015 9:00 AM


Re: Correcting Raphael's many errors. Part 1
PaulK writes:
No, pointing out that your false assertion is in fact false is hardly misleading.
I'm afraid that it is, when you seem to be merely avoiding the argument. In case you have forgotten, here it is again:
On what grounds do you accept the historicity of Plato, Lucretius, Pliny, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Aristotle, and deny that of the NT, when equally as little evidence (absolutely nothing) of original texts exist?
You were the one who claimed that the "amount of physical evidence" for the Gospels was a good reason to believe in their reliability. The fact that the physical evidence isn't anywhere near as good as you claim doesn't illustrate bias on MY part.
You seem to be misquoting me. Here is what I said:
quote:
I believe in a supernatural God. I believe this because of the overwhelming evidence for the legitimacy of the New Testament, because of the existing evidence for existence of Jesus Christ, I believe this because of the cogent, excellent evidence for His resurrection - Message 3
  —Raphael
I never claimed to have physical evidence. Only that evidence exists, and I have shown some. And that is really the issue here. At a basic level, you refuse to be open-minded to the possibility that the claims of scripture (the original documents) might be be true.
I have no responsibility for whatever arguments you imagine I am making. I am only pointing out that the number of copies is not significant evidence of reliability in the original documents. There's no argument that they are unreliable there.
There is no "imagining" here, friend. The fact remains that this is a fallacious argument from ignorance. We can't say "because we don't know for sure" the stories are probably untrue. This is a leap of faith on your part and remains to be proven.
I have agreed with you that the number of copies is not evidence of the reliability of the original documents. But have rebutted that we have the same problem with many other ancient documents, and yet easily accept their historicity. You have continued to avoid this argument.
Which essentially agrees with my point.
Yes, if that point is "we don't know." However, I have demonstrated that there exists more evidence for than against in this case, so a case can cogently be made. If it could not the debate would not exist. If far more evidence can be produced confirming something that might have happened, the weight rests on the individual to decide what he or she will believe. I have cogently given reasons for my conclusion. You seem to have already made up your mind.
What stretch? I *agreed* that the manuscripts can be used as evidence for transmission. Why are you assuming otherwise.
I'm merely pointing back to my above argument, that there exists a smaller body of evidence to work from with other ancient writers, and yet they are accepted as historically valid.
And there is a massive non-sequitur. I'm not making any claim that there was full agreement on doctrine, only that passing down doctrines like the resurrection - which would have been commonly agreed anyway - was more important to the writers than historical accuracy.
I agree with this, but it essentially inconsequential because the story needed to spread before it could be "passed down." Nobody was concerned with passing down anything until after the story had spread and gained a following. How did the story spread? Why did it spread? How can you account for the rapid growth of the Way of Christ in a setting where it should not have happened? My argument seems to offer the best explanation here, since you have given no alternative thus far, only arguments from ignorance.
The fact that even oral traditions are mutable until they are formalised, and there were decades between Jesus' death and the writing of even the first Gospel. And indeed, modern Christians can fall for and circulate urban legends or mistake fictions for facts (see some of the "glurge" entries on Snopes). Why assume that the early Christians were so different?
We know that all the gospels compiled sources to make their claims. At worst, this again becomes a personal faith issue, for it would be another argument from ignorance, since there are things we don't know. We can't make assumptions based on what we don't know. Why assume they were? Seems like more fallacious ad hominem - people fall for all sorts of things all the time, Christians are not special in that regard, and this line of reasoning does not logically follow.
The issue remains, simply, a matter of faith.
Regards!
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2015 9:00 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2015 1:35 PM Raphael has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 75 of 511 (771588)
10-27-2015 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Raphael
10-27-2015 12:49 PM


Re: Correcting Raphael's many errors. Part 1
quote:
I'm afraid that it is, when you seem to be merely avoiding the argument. In case you have forgotten, here it is again
That was not what I was addressing at that point. This is the claim I was addressing:
quote:
My first reason for believing in the story of Jesus is the amount of physical evidence we have for the legitimacy of the New Testament, in comparison with how much real evidence we have for other historical people and documents.
As I pointed out you do not have any significant amount of physical evidence for the accuracy of the Gospels. This also addresses your false accusation of a misquote
quote:
On what grounds do you accept the historicity of Plato, Lucretius, Pliny, Demosthenes, Herodotus, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Aristotle, and deny that of the NT, when equally as little evidence (absolutely nothing) of original texts exist?
Let us note that some of those are philosophers more than historians. The others, as I said are judged on our knowledge of them, their sources and their methods. so to accuse me of evading the issue is false.
I would add that none are accepted uncritically. Suetonius' story of the events around The birth of Augustus, for instance, is highly suspect. Plato's story of Atlantis is hardly accepted as reliable history, and even his Socratic dialogues are taken to be more Plato's invention than a recounting of actual conversations.
quote:
I never claimed to have physical evidence. Only that evidence exists, and I have shown some. And that is really the issue here. At a basic level, you refuse to be open-minded to the possibility that the claims of scripture (the original documents) might be be true.
False. I refuse to uncritically accept them, and therefore treat them like other historical documents.
quote:
There is no "imagining" here, friend. The fact remains that this is a fallacious argument from ignorance. We can't say "because we don't know for sure" the stories are probably untrue. This is a leap of faith on your part and remains to be proven
I don't say it. That IS purely your imagination.
quote:
I have agreed with you that the number of copies is not evidence of the reliability of the original documents. But have rebutted that we have the same problem with many other ancient documents, and yet easily accept their historicity. You have continued to avoid this argument.
That you have ignored my answer does not mean that I am evading the question
quote:
Yes, if that point is "we don't know." However, I have demonstrated that there exists more evidence for than against in this case, so a case can cogently be made
No, you have demonstrated that there is no good evidence for. We have yet to discuss the evidence against.
quote:
We know that all the gospels compiled sources to make their claims. At worst, this again becomes a personal faith issue, for it would be another argument from ignorance, since there are things we don't know. We can't make assumptions based on what we don't know. Why assume they were? Seems like more fallacious ad hominem - people fall for all sorts of things all the time, Christians are not special in that regard, and this line of reasoning does not logically follow.
Unfortunately for you my argument is based on what we do know. I'm not claiming that Christians are special - I'm claiming that the early Christians were susceptible to the same problems as other humans, and using modern Christians as an especially apt example.
if you wish to claim otherwise, it is up to you to produce evidence. ca you reliably identifie the sources used by Mark? Can you give reasons to show that they are reliable, that the author of Mark was a good historian ? This is the sort of thing you should have been producing from the start. Ask yourself why you ignored that to rely on spurious arguments instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Raphael, posted 10-27-2015 12:49 PM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Raphael, posted 10-29-2015 6:15 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024