|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That doesn't make any sense. What do we learn if He does it for us? And why does He have to do anything anyway? Why couldn't God just forgive us?
ringo writes:
He did it for us. Why would HE need to repent and repudiate His old lifestyle? Phat writes:
Why did He "have" to do it first? Why did He "have" to do it alt all? Not that we now get a free pass but so that we are now able to do it...He had to do it first.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
GDR writes:
Where? Outside the Bible?
The resurrection is recorded as historical. GDR writes:
The same can be said for the Flood. The resurrection requires that the laws of science as we currently know them have to be suspended. Science cannot be used to repudiate or confirm resurrection.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
All you've done is add another unknowable, undefianable and made- up "Jesus" within your mind. Irrelevant whether One actually existed or not. Without Jesus, we would simply have an unknowable, undefinable, and made-up "God" within our mind. Irrelevant whether One actually existed or not.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
A bigger pile of unreliable evidence doesn't make it more reliable. And of course each source was compiled by individuals with their own agenda and the canon was compiled by people with an agenda. I'd say that that adds up to a lot less than "historical evidence".
Sure, only in the Bible, but the Bible isn't just the testimony of one individual. As the Gospels are compilations of material there are numerous people testifying to the resurrection. In addition there are the Epistles with further testimony to the a historical resurrection. GDR writes:
That isn't the only way that science repudiates the resurrection. As far as science is concerned, the resurrection is as impossible as the Flood, as impossible as Jesus flying up to heaven by flapping His arms. The resurrection would not have left any lasting physical evidence.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
I didn't say it was. I said it makes literature unreliable as historical evidence. Having an agenda in and of itself is not a disqualifier.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's a bad attitude to start with. Some people don't need any evidence at all to be convinced and some people are too eager to grasp at the first straws that might support their desired outcome.
It takes different amounts of evidence to convince different people. Phat writes:
When somebody claims that there "is" historical evidence, the absence of evidence definitely IS significant. ... the absence of evidence is not a precondition towards evidence of absence.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
The Bible is evidence that the Bible was written. We can not conclude from that evidence that anything in the Bible is true.
Of course it is historical evidence. What you are talking about is its reliability. GDR writes:
You're saying it backwards. If something is possible, we can determine whether or not it happened. I have agreed that if the resurrection is historical then it happened outside of the laws of known science. Your point is that the laws of science are immutable and as a result resurrection is impossible.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
That isn't what resurrection means. You've been wasting everybody's time by claiming that you believe in the resurrection. I don't believe that He came back to life as we know it. I believe that the resurrected Jesus was experienced in a body that bridged our universe and God's universe. If He came back in a different spooky body, the wounds that He showed off were counterfeit and His whole "proof" that He was alive was a lie.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Where are Paul's credentials? ... having little or no respect for Paul smacks of uninformed arrogance. Where are your credentials?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NosyNed writes:
There are actually (at least) three different categories here:
The Rowling books are explicitly stated by the author to be unreliable evidence (i.e., fiction) for the existance of Hogwarts. The gospels might therefore be taken as a tich more "reliable" than the Harry Potter series.1. Books that admit to being fiction - e.g. the Harry Potter books 2. Books that are fiction but claim not to be - e.g. Treasure Island, the Bible 3. Books that claim NOT to be fiction - e.g. All the President's Men And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Yes I do. Jim Hawkins claimed that the events in Treasure Island really happened. He even went so far as to have Dr. Livesey narrate the parts that he didn't witness himself.
You've made up category 2. You have no proof of the claim. Phat writes:
I challenge everything. That's the proper MO. How else can you hope to figure out what's true and what's false?
Pauls credentials are usually stated without controversy among scholars. Why do you insist on challenging them? Phat writes:
I'm not the one who is making claims about Jesus.
One could ask where your credentials are. Phat writes:
You have it backwards. We already know that as far as many Christian claims are concerned, we know that the rubber doesn't meet the road at all. These arguments are far more than simple logic problems. Lots of things can be disproven on paper, but we are interested in whether the rubber meets the road(to Damascus) or not.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
They were all evaluated the same way by the people who canonized them.
OK, but once again there were 66 books written and so they are not all to be evaluated in the same way. GDR writes:
Treasure Island was compiled from the accounts of Jim Hawkins and Dr. Livesey, and it claims to be accurate. Both of those traits are quite common in fiction. Also, the Gospels were compilations and 2 of them claim to be accurate. Edited by ringo, : No reason given.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
If it was not the same body, it was not a resurrection and the wounds were faked. It was a physical body but different.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
If you put new tires on your car, few people would say it was a different car. If you move a map from the glove compartment to a new car, few people would say it was the same car. If you copy the scratches and dents from the old car to the new car, most people would say you were faking it. Jesus' resurrection is about a renewed physicality, that isn't subject to entropy and isn't limited to the world that we perceive with our 5 senses. If your idea of resurrection is just going back to being God, that isn't very impressive.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
It would definitely not be the same car.
If your car underwent a transformation that made it able to drive through buildings without disturbing anything in the buildings or in the car while keeping its dents and scratches intact ("He was wounded for our transgressions")... Faith writes:
Yes. That's what I'm saying. Haven't you been following the thread at all? A resurrected Jesus is not the original Jesus. There is no need for the wounds to be there; they're faked. ... you might have to admit something in its essential nature had changed.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024