Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 316 of 511 (772379)
11-13-2015 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by PaulK
10-27-2015 4:38 PM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
Apologies for being gone so long, midterms are now over so I am free to engage in friendly discourse Hopefully it is not too off-topic at this point to return to where we left off!
PaulK writes:
No, it is saying that in the absence of good evidence for reliability (and with good reasons to expect strong bias) we cannot conclude that they are reliable. I am not arguing here for unreliability, I am countering your arguments for reliability. And if you cannot see that then you need to open your eyes.
I want to acknowledge this. You are correct in saying there is an absence of lots of good evidence for reliability. However, my point still stands: this is the case with almost any study of history. We never know for sure that what we piece together is what actually happened. As I quoted earlier, this is always the tension with studying history in general.
Take, for instance, Caesar's Firsthand account of the Roman invasion of Gaul (in the Commentarii de Bello Gallico). It is the only account we have of this invasion - we only have one manuscript - written by Caesar (or claimed to be), and the only copy we have is written 900 years after the event. Basically all mainstream historians agree the Synoptic Gospels were written 70-90AD (Mark 70, the others 80-90), at the latest, 60 years after the death of Christ.
All this to say: It is historical fact that we have more evidence of the life of Jesus than we do for the Roman invasion of Gaul (we have 4 accounts of Jesus life, 1 of the invasion).
What will you do with this information?
Greatest I Am might find accounts of mystical experiences to be convincing evidence. I do not.
How unfortunate. This sounds like a bias on your part to the idiothetic side of research. You should check out The Psychology of Religion by Hood, Chill, Spika sometime. An excellent work; the authors go into good detail about the Western bias against the idiothetic side of epistemology. We are quite quick to dismiss mystical experiences in western culture, mostly because over time we have developed a favoritism of the nomothetic side of epistemology - that is, we favor numbers and statistics in our search for knowledge, over a more wholistic approach which actually engages an individual in their experiences.
Since it appears in Luke it likely is a late addition. Mark simply says that the women saw a young man in a white robe who delivered a slightly - but significantly - different message. Not much evidence of a mystical experience there. And that itself is likely a late addition to the story of Jesus.
Not necessarily, unless by "late addition" you mean "Luke was written about 10-15 years later than Mark," than sure. "Late addition" is a pretty deceptive phrase, considering there were many gospels being passed around throughout this time. And as for the differences, here's Mark's account:
quote:
4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.Don’t be alarmed, he said. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you... - Mark 16:6-7
Regardless of the change of interpretation of the kind of garments, the experience is still one where the tomb was empty, Jesus was gone, and this man claiming Jesus rose from death. It remains mystical, especially considering the man's claim that Jesus would meet Peter in Galilee.
Mark is directed at a Gentile audience, as is Luke.
Indeed, but I was speaking of the progression unto what we now call "the Gospels." There never should have been stories going around in the first place, because (almost) all first hearers of the good news of Jesus resurrection were Jews.
Neither Cephas nor the twelve were women. The empty tomb story - including the women - is nowhere to be seen. And that is where your argument fails. Paul did not even mention the women or their testimony. How then could it be a problem ?
This lends credibility to my argument as well, for a male-dominated society of which Paul was definitely apart (he was a Pharisee no less) would definitely have left out the fact that women were the first witnesses. There could be many reasons for this; perhaps Paul himself did not believe those claims, Perhaps he was told otherwise. He does not tell us where he got this progression of people who were told, nor if it is a comprehensive list or a timeline. We simply don't know enough to draw a conclusion.
Unfortunately you contradict yourself. The assessment of evidential value is based on what we do know. What we don't know can't be counted as evidence.
At the end of the day, semantics. Haha. I won't press the issue any further.
However, scholars date ALL the Gospels and Acts later than 1 Corinthians. And decisively, 1 Corinthians 15 places that appearance before the appearance to James, and the appearance to Paul. Since that appearance is mentioned in Acts, clearly all the preceding appearances had to occur before Acts was written.
Indeed this is true, to 70-90AD. This all stands to reason that these written claims of sightings of the resurrected Christ would have sparked curiosity. It is interesting though, that the movement did not die here but instead began flourishing greatly. How could such a movement have rapidly grown when witnesses could not be found? If prominent people like Paul are claiming so many have seen the risen Christ, and nobody has actually seen him, wouldn't such a a hoax be exposed rather soon? We see examples of this in modern culture in the Koreshes and Mansons, people who both had followers who believed everything their leaders said for a time, but later on defectors come forward, admitting the hoax for what it was.
My argument is, of course, that the evidence for the resurrection is not good. Therefore that is all I need to show.
Well, no, actually. This is a search for "truth," so you don't (none of us do) stand from some neutral, objective position able to critique without also offering alternatives. In fact, your bias reveals itself in that you have more to lose if the resurrection happened than if it did not. So it's a little of a conflict of interest. This is confirmed in that you have not even attempted to offer an answer to my initial question, which was:
- How do you account for the growth of the Christian church in general had neither of these phenomenon (the empty tomb, the appearance to the 500) occurred?
I would disagree. Acts, for instance suggests that there was quite strong pressure for members to hand over their money to the community.
Sounds very much like reading one's own ideas into the text here. The first text you mentioned, Acts 4:34-35 is a description of a community of believers giving voluntarily of what they owned so they could share, and the less fortunate could have more, a beautiful picture. Surprisingly, there is absolutely nothing in the text that might suggest people were coerced or manipulated into this, despite the fact that the NT does paint the church in negative lights quite often.
The second account in Acts 5 takes into account the theology surrounding tithe giving and the selfishness of the human heart. Certainly a passage to be wrestled with, personally and collectively. However it would seem very reductionistic to simplify what took place in this account from the workings of God among his people to a symbolic tale of how the church pressured people into giving money. This may be your personal interpretation, but it's not the best exegesis.
Unfortunately for you, that is a complete falsehood. The only genuine argument from ignorance you identified was a product of your own imagination.
It is odd that someone who is so free of accusing others of making arguments from ignorance would say such a thing. To presume that i have no reasons for concluding that the Gospels are unreliable before we have even discussed that topic. This discussion, I remind you, is about your claims to have evidence for the resurrection. Not my arguments against. On that subject you are clearly ignorant and jump to a false conclusion based on that ignorance.
First off, my friend, Paul, I do not presume you do not have reasons for concluding the Gospels are unbelieveable. I do not have any way of knowing you personally, knowing your life journey, or the reasons you have for holding the beliefs you do. And I also do not assume they have not been sufficient for you. What I am doing is making logical conclusions based on things you are saying.
Jesus was a real historical figure. This is fact, and it is not debated by anyone. We have more historical evidence for his life than we do for many other historical figures, people, places, and conquests. I have shown this with both the evidence that exists for the existence of Socrates and the infestismle amount of evidence that we have for Caesar's Invasion of Gaul. My claims about the resurrection are claims based on conclusions drawn by solid investigations of scripture, corroborated by scholars of Biblical history (Justo Gonzalez, Kenneth Scott Latourette of Yale, Timothy Keller, Bart Ehrman to name just a few).
I cannot, and nobody ever will be able to prove that Christ rose from the dead. I never claimed to be able to do this, and I stand by this. However, I have presented a cogent case for the evidence that exists, with the knowledge that any search for truth within history is bound to be inconclusive.
I do not find belief to be a choice. I will go where the evidence leads me. And it leads away from Christianity.
Of course belief is a choice. We all plant stakes in the ground on what we think to be true, and no matter the worldview, everyone, at some point, holds a belief (or counter-belief,which is still a belief, such as atheism) or unprovable presupposition about the world, the nature of reality, the meaning of life, etc. Can you prove to me you are not dreaming right now? Can you prove to me your mother/spouse/child/pet loves you? Of course not. Perhaps they might hook up your brain to a machine and determine that you are not in your REM Cycle, but then again, how would you know that the doctors you go to are real, if it's a dream? #thematrix #inception
For you, it seems that your presupposition, or dare I even say deeply rooted belief, is: since we cannot know 100% that what people wrote down in the gospels actually happened, they "probably didn't happen like you think." And even deeper, you seem to believe that since the claims in the gospels are so outrageous (miracles, an empty tomb, talk of resurrection), they "probably didn't happen."
Unfortunately, in real life, we don't always go where the evidence leads us. That's a pretty huge illusion. We make "gut decisions," use intuition, have "a feeling" about things all the time, with absolutely zero evidence, and often times, it pays off. I invite and encourage you to leave behind what seems to be a "scientism" sort of bias you carry, a "there must be hard proof for all things" bias - one that the current age and culture has actually influenced you to use - and re-approach the claims of scripture.
So, the question still remains, my friend : What will you do with Jesus?
Regards!
- Raph
Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.
Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 10-27-2015 4:38 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2015 6:43 AM Raphael has replied
 Message 319 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2015 6:50 AM Raphael has not replied
 Message 320 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2015 6:56 AM Raphael has not replied
 Message 321 by Admin, posted 11-13-2015 7:16 AM Raphael has not replied
 Message 325 by PaulK, posted 11-14-2015 7:31 AM Raphael has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 317 of 511 (772380)
11-13-2015 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by ICANT
11-12-2015 7:11 PM


T-10branes
By the way, some scientists theorize multiple dimensions because the math shows the possibility, and observation does not yet confound it.
How does math show anything prior to T=1040?
The M-theory/BraneWorld speculations have nothing to do with closing in on T=0. They involve a totally different perspective.
Strictly embedded in the rigors of the mathematics from start to finish, the mathematics in M-theory can resolve into thin slices called branes through a multi-dimensional space-time. Branes can manifest with 2, 3, 4, or more spatial dimensions. The hypothesis is that this universe we all know and love is a 3-brane embedded in the tapestry of a far larger space-time with an infinite number of slices, brane worlds, each with an n number of spatial dimensions.
Further, the math shows that these different brane worlds, the different slices of space time, may be only millimeters (or less) away from each other and that they move, actually flutter like a series of flags, across the larger space time in which they are embedded.
So the question naturally arises, what would happen if two neighboring branes touch, collide, bang into each other, encroach on each others personal space? Again, strictly embedded in the rigors of the mathematics from start to finish, we have an answer.
Leaving aside the speculative hypotheses for the moment, our present theory, inflationary/big bang, takes the present expanding universe that we see and reverses the flow of time to find out what this universe was, what it looked like, in the past. And yet again, strictly embedded in the rigors of the mathematics from start to finish, we get close but we do not get all the way back to T=0.
If we start from, say T=10-44, 1 Planck time, and move forward, we can see the our universe unfold, inflate then do its bang thing, condense electrons and quarks from the energy fields, watch protons form, watch H and He form, watch the last scattering of the CMB, watch stars and galaxies and planets and people form.
What is interesting about the brane world collision speculation, and yet again, strictly embedded in the rigors of the mathematics from start to finish, we see an enormous exchange of energy between the branes, both ways (wrap your head around that one), that results in ...
wait for it ...
exactly what we see in the inflationary/big bang.
So, yes, some scientists theorize multiple dimensions because the math shows the possibility, and observation does not yet confound it and it has nothing to do with T=10-40 or before.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : OK , I quit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2015 7:11 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 318 of 511 (772381)
11-13-2015 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Raphael
11-13-2015 4:19 AM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
Raphael writes:
... Take, for instance, Caesar's Firsthand account of the Roman invasion of Gaul (in the Commentarii de Bello Gallico). It is the only account we have of this invasion - we only have one manuscript - written by Caesar (or claimed to be), and the only copy we have is written 900 years after the event.
Whether Caeser existed or not, we have lots and lots and lots of other empirical, verifiable evidence that the Romans invaded and ruled Gaul. Your attempt at drawing similarities fails miserably.
We all know that, whether Caeser existed or not, he was not a Spook. And that the Roman empire ruled Gaul. And that Rome was a place and and they had an empire. And that DNA exists and existed in those days, too.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Raphael, posted 11-13-2015 4:19 AM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Raphael, posted 11-13-2015 3:30 PM Pressie has replied
 Message 386 by Raphael, posted 11-21-2015 8:44 PM Pressie has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 319 of 511 (772382)
11-13-2015 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Raphael
11-13-2015 4:19 AM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
Raphael writes:
Of course belief is a choice.
Nope. Not for me. To me belief is the opposite of choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Raphael, posted 11-13-2015 4:19 AM Raphael has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 320 of 511 (772383)
11-13-2015 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Raphael
11-13-2015 4:19 AM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
Raphael gave a classic Gish Gallop!
Raphael writes:
All this to say: It is historical fact that we have more evidence of the life of Jesus than we do for the Roman invasion of Gaul (we have 4 accounts of Jesus life, 1 of the invasion).
We've got DNA.
What do you think about that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Raphael, posted 11-13-2015 4:19 AM Raphael has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 321 of 511 (772385)
11-13-2015 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Raphael
11-13-2015 4:19 AM


Moderator Provided Information
Raphael writes:
Take, for instance, Caesar's Firsthand account of the Roman invasion of Gaul (in the Commentarii de Bello Gallico). It is the only account we have of this invasion - we only have one manuscript - written by Caesar (or claimed to be), and the only copy we have is written 900 years after the event.
Cicero, a Caesar contemporary and dissenter, wrote a review of Commentarii de Bello Gallico.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Raphael, posted 11-13-2015 4:19 AM Raphael has not replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 322 of 511 (772390)
11-13-2015 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by ICANT
11-12-2015 5:49 PM


ICANT
You say A & E had free will.
Yet God decided to kill them the first time they used their free will and not God's will and chose knowledge over staying stupid and blind.
Do you have a free will if you have to follow commands on pain of death?
Do commands and their accompanying punishments not negate a free will?
Yes they do.
Further.
Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or it’s all man’s fault.
That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."
But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.
If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin. That being the case, for God to punish us for following the instincts and natures he put in us would be quite wrong.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2015 5:49 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2015 2:23 PM Greatest I am has replied
 Message 346 by ICANT, posted 11-17-2015 1:26 AM Greatest I am has replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 323 of 511 (772391)
11-13-2015 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by ICANT
11-12-2015 6:00 PM


ICANT
"I believe there is 1 Supernatural Power that controls all the energy and mass".
If God is controlling all energy and mass, and that would include us, then how is it you also say we have a free will. We cannot if we are controlled. Right?
You also said that God no longer creates when I showed him creating abominations. That also shows you contradicting yourself.
Care to clear that up?
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by ICANT, posted 11-12-2015 6:00 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by ICANT, posted 11-17-2015 2:30 AM Greatest I am has replied

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


Message 324 of 511 (772411)
11-13-2015 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by Pressie
11-13-2015 6:43 AM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
Pressie writes:
Whether Caeser existed or not, we have lots and lots and lots of other empirical, verifiable evidence that the Romans invaded and ruled Gaul. Your attempt at drawing similarities fails miserably.
Sure, but to what end? There is essentially no serious scholar today that would say Jesus did not exist, which I hope you're not trying to insinuate here. My point in using the roman invasion of Gaul is in the literary evidence category.
We all know that, whether Caeser existed or not, he was not a Spook. And that the Roman empire ruled Gaul. And that Rome was a place and and they had an empire. And that DNA exists and existed in those days, too.
We all know that, Jesus existed, had a following of people, was killed, and then his followers claimed he rose from the dead and appeared to them, in different places, at different times, and among different people. The evidence - not proof - is there, and we can draw conclusions about it.
I would never be so naive to think that this could be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. And it shouldn't be. The accumulated evidence does, though, force us to ask a few questions:
1. If there were a God, does Jesus fit into the category of what we would think God is like? Is he both existentially satisfying and intellectually credible?
2. If Jesus did resurrect, like he said he would, don't we also have to examine his claim that he was THE God? Not one of the options, but the only way, truth, and life?
and finally,
3. If there were a God, and that God was indeed Jesus, wouldn't the things he has to say about where we ought to find meaning, self-worth, and fulfillment be even better than what we think will give us those things? Food for thought
Nope. Not for me. To me belief is the opposite of choice.
Then, my friend, you delude yourself. We make beliefs about things every single day, subconsciously and consciously. On the other hand, always making decisions based on infallible evidence is an illusion. It's nonsense. You believe you have inherent worth and value as a human being, even though this could never be proven. You believe you're not dreaming currently because you assume certain things about what a dream is like, unproveable things. You choose to believe your spouse/parent/children love you, despite not being able to offer 100% objective evidence that it is so. This is how real life works.
We've got DNA.
What do you think about that?
I think that's great! I love history. But as I have already stated, always needing what we would call "hard evidence" before making conclusions is an assumption about epistemology. It is a presupposition about the way knowledge is even attained or gathered.
Regards!
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by Pressie, posted 11-13-2015 6:43 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by ringo, posted 11-14-2015 11:12 AM Raphael has not replied
 Message 330 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-14-2015 11:57 PM Raphael has not replied
 Message 333 by Pressie, posted 11-16-2015 2:39 AM Raphael has not replied
 Message 334 by Pressie, posted 11-16-2015 2:46 AM Raphael has not replied
 Message 335 by Pressie, posted 11-16-2015 3:00 AM Raphael has not replied
 Message 336 by Pressie, posted 11-16-2015 4:19 AM Raphael has not replied

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


Message 325 of 511 (772436)
11-14-2015 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Raphael
11-13-2015 4:19 AM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
Well I have to give you a big F- and wish you luck on graduating high school. You'll need it.
quote:
I want to acknowledge this. You are correct in saying there is an absence of lots of good evidence for reliability. However, my point still stands: this is the case with almost any study of history. We never know for sure that what we piece together is what actually happened. As I quoted earlier, this is always the tension with studying history in general.
And there is often better evidence than we have for the Gospels...
quote:
Take, for instance, Caesar's Firsthand account of the Roman invasion of Gaul (in the Commentarii de Bello Gallico). It is the only account we have of this invasion - we only have one manuscript - written by Caesar (or claimed to be), and the only copy we have is written 900 years after the event. Basically all mainstream historians agree the Synoptic Gospels were written 70-90AD (Mark 70, the others 80-90), at the latest, 60 years after the death of Christ.
Let us note that you are comparing apples and oranges. For Caesar you take the gap between the events and the oldest existing copy. For the Gospels the gap between the events and the original documents. However Caesar wrote at the time he was commanding in Gaul, and he was an eyewitness. That beats the Gospels, which is why you don't mention it.
quote:
All this to say: It is historical fact that we have more evidence of the life of Jesus than we do for the Roman invasion of Gaul (we have 4 accounts of Jesus life, 1 of the invasion).
Given that the Gospels only cover one or maybe three years in Jesus' life, given that the historical Jesus is judged to be unrecoverable, given that we have other evidence for the Roman invasion of Gaul, given the dependencies between the Synoptic Gospels (and quite possibly John) I'd really have to say that you haven't even begun to discuss the matter.
quote:
Not necessarily, unless by "late addition" you mean "Luke was written about 10-15 years later than Mark," than sure. "Late addition" is a pretty deceptive phrase, considering there were many gospels being passed around throughout this time.
I note that the figure of 10-15 years only applies if the story originated in Mark. So thank you for implicitly conceding that much.
quote:
Regardless of the change of interpretation of the kind of garments, the experience is still one where the tomb was empty, Jesus was gone, and this man claiming Jesus rose from death. It remains mystical, especially considering the man's claim that Jesus would meet Peter in Galilee.
In other words it wasn't a mystical experience. And I will note that Luke/Acts denies the Galilee appearances. (A rather significant point, I think)
quote:
This lends credibility to my argument as well, for a male-dominated society of which Paul was definitely apart (he was a Pharisee no less) would definitely have left out the fact that women were the first witnesses.
Unfortunately for you, your argument relies on that "fact" being passed around as an argument for the resurrection. The fact that no source prior to Mark does anything of the sort makes that claim a mere assumption, lacking in credibility.
quote:
- How do you account for the growth of the Christian church in general had neither of these phenomenon (the empty tomb, the appearance to the 500) occurred?
Of course I have already Nswered that. But I will add that since neither event seems to be of great importance in the rise of Christianity the question is fundamentally mistaken.
quote:
Sounds very much like reading one's own ideas into the text here. The first text you mentioned, Acts 4:34-35 is a description of a community of believers giving voluntarily of what they owned so they could share, and the less fortunate could have more, a beautiful picture. Surprisingly, there is absolutely nothing in the text that might suggest people were coerced or manipulated into this, despite the fact that the NT does paint the church in negative lights quite often.
And yet we know that Ananaias and Sapphira both felt that they could not admit to holding *some* of the money back from the sale of their property, even when confronted on the matter - and the text says that they died for it. That does speak of pressure, with the story of their deaths adding more.
quote:
First off, my friend, Paul, I do not presume you do not have reasons for concluding the Gospels are unbelieveable. I do not have any way of knowing you personally, knowing your life journey, or the reasons you have for holding the beliefs you do. And I also do not assume they have not been sufficient for you. What I am doing is making logical conclusions based on things you are saying.
Of course the evidence is there in the Bible if you choose to read it and consider it fairly and rationally. Your fantasies about me are irrelevant.
In reality you have made no case for the resurrection, barely started to discuss the evidence and made numerous other errors.
Indeed, the performance of the Christians in this thread is quite damning evidence against the resurrection. The irrationality, the dishonesty, the evasions and the lame excuses hardly speak of an intellectually defensible belief, nor of anything anyone could call Christian in anything but the loosest sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Raphael, posted 11-13-2015 4:19 AM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by Raphael, posted 11-21-2015 9:33 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 326 of 511 (772455)
11-14-2015 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Raphael
11-13-2015 3:30 PM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
Raphael writes:
If there were a God, and that God was indeed Jesus, wouldn't the things he has to say about where we ought to find meaning, self-worth, and fulfillment be even better than what we think will give us those things?
That's kind of a circular question. Maybe God/Jesus "would" know better than we do what we "should" value - but how would we know? What's the difference between "recognizing" a better way and inventing it ourselves?
It comes down to taking His word for it that His way is better. Worse, it comes down to taking the word of His self-proclaimed representatives among us.
Raphael writes:
If Jesus did resurrect, like he said he would, don't we also have to examine his claim that he was THE God?
If unicorns could fly, wouldn't we have to re-examine what we know about aerodynamics? Maybe so, but I don't see why it should be high on our agenda today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Raphael, posted 11-13-2015 3:30 PM Raphael has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 327 of 511 (772475)
11-14-2015 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Greatest I am
11-13-2015 9:34 AM


Do you have a free will if you have to follow commands on pain of death?
Quite obviously this depends on exactly what the command is. Does a law requiring your death in a capital murder case mean take away human free will? And are there not people who still commit capital offenses despite the law?
Perhaps you should rethink your entire line argument. The fact that your actions have consequences does not remove your ability or your free will. In fact such a state is the reality we all live in. Removing human free will would mean making them mentally or physically incapable of performing an act contrary to some rule or guideline.
There is also the point that Adam and Eve apparently survived their sin by hundreds of years.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Greatest I am, posted 11-13-2015 9:34 AM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Greatest I am, posted 11-14-2015 3:10 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Greatest I am
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 1676
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 328 of 511 (772477)
11-14-2015 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 327 by NoNukes
11-14-2015 2:23 PM


NoNukes
Hundreds of years as compared to infinity if allowed to eat of the tree of life.
The fact that you did not answer my simple question is all I need to know.
You know that commands and an arbitrary death sentence does effect free will.
Regards
DL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2015 2:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by NoNukes, posted 11-14-2015 8:34 PM Greatest I am has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 329 of 511 (772497)
11-14-2015 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Greatest I am
11-14-2015 3:10 PM


The fact that you did not answer my simple question is all I need to know.
Actually I did answer your question. Yes you can have free will in the face of possible punishment. Your boss orders you around all of the time and you can disobey him under threat of being fired. You still have free will.
If you live in the right state and commit a capital offense you may be killed by the state if caught. You still have free will, and some people even exercise that will to commit hanging offenses.
So I answered your questions. You did not answer mine, now did you?
You know that commands and an arbitrary death sentence does effect free will.
Commands do affect free will, yes. The question is whether command and death threats remove free will, which is your claim. The answer has been shown to be that free will can exist in those situations.
And your question about free will concerns a situation in which the command in question was flaunted. If the situation is as described then apparently Adam and Eve did have some free will.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Greatest I am, posted 11-14-2015 3:10 PM Greatest I am has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Greatest I am, posted 11-15-2015 5:09 PM NoNukes has replied

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


Message 330 of 511 (772506)
11-14-2015 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Raphael
11-13-2015 3:30 PM


Re: Raphael's many errors Part 3
Sure, but to what end? There is essentially no serious scholar today that would say Jesus did not exist, which I hope you're not trying to insinuate here. My point in using the roman invasion of Gaul is in the literary evidence category.
Well, suppose that we had only literary evidence for the invasion of Gaul, and no physical evidence at all. Now suppose that the literary evidence described Caesar and his armies conquering Gaul mounted on flying elephants. Would you give this account any credence?
I think that's great! I love history. But as I have already stated, always needing what we would call "hard evidence" before making conclusions is an assumption about epistemology.
The idea that if we believed every crazy story we heard we'd end up believing all sorts of dumb nonsense is hardly an "assumption".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Raphael, posted 11-13-2015 3:30 PM Raphael has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024