Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?
Raphael
Member (Idle past 462 days)
Posts: 173
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007


Message 181 of 262 (723879)
04-10-2014 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Straggler
04-10-2014 6:41 AM


Re: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
Straggler writes:
Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?
Why are we moral?
Why do humans believe in the existence of deities?
How do you explain certain personal experiences?
These are the sort of gaps into which you and other Christians place your God. Without these gaps all you have is an amalgam of ancient myths retold in the old Testament and the tale of a bearded conjurer who gave a fairly inspirational speech on a mount in the new Testament.
These are all great questions, and you are pretty correct. Christianity has placed God within these gaps. This is a limitation. What is interesting, however, is your perception that scripture is an "amalgam of ancient myths and tales..." I am curious to know where you got this idea from?
My goal is not to suggest I am right, God exists, scripture is valid, and "how could you be so foolish as to not believe?" My goal is to challenge your perception and presuppositions about Scripture/God/Christ, just as you are challenging my perception and presuppositions about non believers. I believe there is value in that
So how do I access Him without recourse to plugging Him into some gap that involves 'looking within' or whatever?
Great question. For the sake of this argument, let's assume God exists. (only assuming since you asked a question about accessing Him)
A scientist would look at all of the available data in order to come to a conclusion. Therefore, I would say that when investigating "accessing God" one would turn to scripture, since that is the place he has claimed he has revealed himself.
A method I would suggest is finding a Bible somewhere, and read a few chapters in the Book of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. John is my personal favorite . Experiment with reading a 3 chapters a day, for 3 days. You don't need to do anything weird, like "looking within" or expect some strange feeling, or a voice from the heavens. Its pretty mundane, actually . But try and get away from presuppositions and just read the text as it is. Pay attention to the things Jesus says. The way he says them.
However, the most important part is to talk to God. I am unfamiliar with your personal life so I don't know if you have any experience with prayer, but it's quick and easy to do (although may feel pretty weird talking to "nothing"). You can be honest with God. Tell him you don't think he exists, and you are only doing this for scientific research. Do whatever you feel comfortable with. It may feel stupid, but I would be interested to read your conclusions. If this part is left out I would conclude that the experiment is incomplete, and would not demonstrate accurate results.
For clarity:
1. Obtain Bible.
The NKJV, ESV, NRASV, and NIV are all extremely close to the source text and versions I personally like. New Living Version is a good one as well, but is more of a paraphrase.
2. Pray that God would "reveal himself" through this experiment.
3. Read one of the Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke, Or John), 3 chapters a day for 3 days.
Perhaps you have already performed this experiment, or have previous experience with christianity or the supernatural, and you have concluded that God has not accessibly revealed himself. In that case, you probably wouldn't need to do this experiment. No pressure
- Raph
Edited by Raphael, : changing wording

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Straggler, posted 04-10-2014 6:41 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by onifre, posted 04-10-2014 2:39 PM Raphael has not replied
 Message 192 by Straggler, posted 04-11-2014 12:51 PM Raphael has not replied
 Message 193 by ringo, posted 04-11-2014 12:58 PM Raphael has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 182 of 262 (723881)
04-10-2014 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Raphael
04-10-2014 12:50 PM


Re: Repetitive
The atheists (in general) on this forum tend to be a little less open to the possibilities the other side has to offer.
I'm guessing you're speaking of yourself in this case also? Since you are an atheist when it comes to Allah, or Vishnu, right?
Now you might say you are open to the possibility of Allah or Vishnu, well, so am I. But you've ruled it out, as have I, in so far as the evidence itself falls short of being actual objective evidence.
But I don't say god doesn't exist. I simply say everything seems to be explained just fine without having to include magic, the supernatural or god/s.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Raphael, posted 04-10-2014 12:50 PM Raphael has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 183 of 262 (723882)
04-10-2014 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Raphael
04-10-2014 1:22 PM


Re: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
What is interesting, however, is your perception that scripture is an "amalgam of ancient myths and tales..." I am curious to know where you got this idea from?
Have you ever studied religious history? It's all there, from Gilgamesh to virgin births to coming back from the dead (i.e. resurrections). These are myths and ancient tales. A quick Google search for Bible Stories and Myths, or How the Bible took from Mythology should suffice. If not there are plenty of threads here in this forum dealing with all that.
My goal is to challenge your perception and presuppositions about Scripture/God/Christ
Straggler has been here since 2006... It has been challenged. Many, many times.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Raphael, posted 04-10-2014 1:22 PM Raphael has not replied

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


Message 184 of 262 (723883)
04-10-2014 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Raphael
04-10-2014 12:50 PM


The opening is here.
You responded with all the reasons why you do not need to have an open mind about this discussion, mainly because you are right, and I am wrong.
I will object to the "You responded with all the reasons why you do not need to have an open mind" crap but, yes, as has been demonstrated, you most definitely are wrong and I am tentatively right.
The piece you, Phat, and others miss in all this is that pesky little word "evidence".
Are you proposing that since no one can present any objective evidence for the existence of any deity that we, in particular, and science, in general, need to consider such existence as possible anyway? Are you saying that it is close-minded to ignore speculations that are not just lacking objective evidence but, at their base, defy those processes we know to operate in this universe?
Remember, science may not know everything but that does not mean we do not know anything and the things we know we know very very well. Speculations that defy those well established theories without any evidence to support them are required to be ignored.
Keeping an open mind is the willingness to follow and accept where the objective evidence compels us to go especially in the face of a radical paradigm shift that is emotionally wrenching. Keeping an open mind does not mean entertaining every possibility pulled from someone's ... creative mind hole.
We are not being close-minded. Show us the compelling evidence and we will follow regardless of how it may defy our philosophies and personal desires.
Can you say the same?
Edited by AZPaul3, : The opening is here.
Edited by AZPaul3, : skreuedup ware the title gos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Raphael, posted 04-10-2014 12:50 PM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Raphael, posted 04-10-2014 9:15 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 185 of 262 (723891)
04-10-2014 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Raphael
04-08-2014 2:15 AM


Re: I accept. Thank you.
There is a narrative. A narrative claiming there is something (or someone) beyond the natural world.
There is a story written by men that depends on there being ignorance of the natural world.
These claims simply say there is something else. Something not so simple as to be obvious.
Yes, something we can't detect, something we are ignorant of, and something you have no intention of every supporting with evidence. This is exactly the problem that AZPaul3 is talking about.
There are several more instances where demonstrate just how right AZPaul3 is. I can quote them if you want?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Raphael, posted 04-08-2014 2:15 AM Raphael has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by AZPaul3, posted 04-10-2014 6:39 PM Taq has not replied

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


Message 186 of 262 (723897)
04-10-2014 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Taq
04-10-2014 6:11 PM


What?
... demonstrate just how right AZPaul3 is.
Taq? I was right? You mean I really was really right!?
Woo-hoo! Way to go me! Who'da thunk!
I am the monarch of the sea,
The ruler of the Queen's Navee,
hum, hum hum hum, hum hum ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Taq, posted 04-10-2014 6:11 PM Taq has not replied

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


Message 187 of 262 (723913)
04-10-2014 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by onifre
04-10-2014 11:14 AM


Re: Repetitive
onifire writes:
Your religion - Christianity - does not exist in a vacuum. It has a clear history, from the Old Testament to the New, littered in ignorance. The Judeo religions, and all religions for that matter, have their foundation in ignorance. Genesis IS evidence of human ignorance.
Sure. Christianity has a clear history, and there is ignorance involved. As does American history, british history, and roman history. As you said, Christianity does not exist in a vacuum. The problems and gaps in knowledge experienced are not local to christianity, but in fact are common to man, and history in general. Genesis IS evidence of human ignorance. But point to any document dated to a similar time and they, too, exhibit human ignorance.
Since science has explained most of the things in our universe, you hang your hats (your God) on the origin of the universe. What you guys like to call "outside" the universe. Read what GDR wrote, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.
In other words, you don't use God to explain biological life (some still do) or planetary formation, or galaxy formation, by saying "God did it" anymore. You found an area of human ignorance (the origin of the universe) to say that's what God created - or could have created, depending on which one of you guys is answering.
I think we're a on a little bit of a different page. I do not believe attempting to argue Intelligent Design with science is beneficial. I do not believe arguing the existence of God with science is beneficial. This is clearly exhibited in creationists on this forum (and in general) who are outnumbered, out-smarted, and in general get very frustrated and create a stereotype for other creationists.
The reason for this perspective is science cannot test the supernatural. It's not that God is outside the universe, it is that God is simply untestable with science. This is the first thing I learned in Biology. Science examines the natural world and creates hypotheses about how it works. You cannot find any proof for the supernatural, and I cannot demonstrate any, because it is the supernatural. I believe Creationism is 100% a matter of faith based on the claims of scripture. So, in order to determine the legitimacy of creationist claims, one must examine the legitimacy of scripture.
But let us test that: Do you think the cause for the universe is God? If so why?
There are several reasons I could list here. I'll go with one here.
I do believe the cause for the universe is God. I believe being the most important part. For me, creationism is not the central part of my belief. The character Jesus Christ is. Therefore, when deciding whether or not to believe in the validity of creation, I look to the testimonies about the life and teachings of Jesus as my "norm," or standard, and ask a series of questions. Jesus claimed He was God. Is this true? Are the writings about him legitimate? Were there any eyewitnesses? How many? Do the eyewitnesses agree? Are there manuscripts? How many? Dating to as close to antiquity as possible, that exist to which I can point to as sources for the Bible I read today? Is there any discrepancy between these original texts and the current Bible?
When these questions are answered I believe I can then look at how Jesus and the New Testament treated the Old Testament. Did Jesus believe in creation? If Jesus existed, and was God as He claimed, would it not then logically follow that if Jesus believed it, Creation happened?
These are all the questions I have to ask in order to illustrate my journey to an ID perspective. I don't think I have time to answer them all here, I am still a struggling University student But I would love to create a thread on it in the near future, describing my journey and getting feedback from those who have different perspectives. There are those here, like arach, who are Old Testament scholars and would be incredibly valuable to the discussion. Hope this helps!
- Raph
Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by onifre, posted 04-10-2014 11:14 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2014 1:54 AM Raphael has replied
 Message 190 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 12:20 PM Raphael has replied
 Message 205 by onifre, posted 04-14-2014 8:48 AM Raphael has replied

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


Message 188 of 262 (723918)
04-10-2014 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by AZPaul3
04-10-2014 2:48 PM


Re: The opening is here.
AZPaul3 writes:
Are you proposing that since no one can present any objective evidence for the existence of any deity that we, in particular, and science, in general, need to consider such existence as possible anyway? Are you saying that it is close-minded to ignore speculations that are not just lacking objective evidence but, at their base, defy those processes we know to operate in this universe?
We are not being close-minded. Show us the compelling evidence and we will follow regardless of how it may defy our philosophies and personal desires.
I recognize that we may be beating a dead horse at this point, and perhaps a new beginning might be useful.
I will also admit that what you have argued right here is probably how my argument appears. What I am saying is that in order for this discussion to move anywhere, we must both be willing to leave behind (as best as possible, as it is not entirely that easy) our presuppositions. I am proposing and encouraging you to leave room for the other side of the spectrum to have value. The truth of it is, any creationist can present any sort of argument they want, but if both sides are not willing to admit that perhaps there is value to the perspective of their inverse, the discussion is worthless.
A good example of this is caffeine. You can find any number of articles on the internet about the "10 Benefits of Caffeine" and just as many articles on the "10 Terrible Effects Of Caffeine." If you are the sort of person who drinks coffee, and wants caffeine to be beneficial, of course you will site those articles. But that doesnt make caffeine any better for you.The same is true for those opposing. There are good things about caffeine. This demonstrates that at any point, there are reasonable and valuable reasons why people believe the things they do, and each side can learn from one another. They may not be the things you want to hear, or even things you agree with, but that doesnt matter. I can oppose your viewpoint and still see how it is beneficial for you.
Keeping an open mind is the willingness to follow and accept where the objective evidence compels us to go especially in the face of a radical paradigm shift that is emotionally wrenching. Keeping an open mind does not mean entertaining every possibility pulled from someone's ... creative mind hole.
Can you say the same?
Actually, open-mindedness is "receptiveness to new ideas." It is a concept that encourages learning from the perspectives of others, and recognizing the innate value of ideas different from ones own.
Source
It is difficult for me, but I believe I can. I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. I love learning. Perhaps I am only young and inexperienced. I still have much growing to do, but I look forward to continue learning from you, AZPaul3. You have much to offer.
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by AZPaul3, posted 04-10-2014 2:48 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 12:22 PM Raphael has not replied

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


(1)
Message 189 of 262 (723941)
04-11-2014 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Raphael
04-10-2014 8:37 PM


Re: Repetitive
quote:
I do believe the cause for the universe is God. I believe being the most important part. For me, creationism is not the central part of my belief. The character Jesus Christ is. Therefore, when deciding whether or not to believe in the validity of creation, I look to the testimonies about the life and teachings of Jesus as my "norm," or standard, and ask a series of questions. Jesus claimed He was God. Is this true? Are the writings about him legitimate? Were there any eyewitnesses? How many? Do the eyewitnesses agree? Are there manuscripts? How many? Dating to as close to antiquity as possible, that exist to which I can point to as sources for the Bible I read today? Is there any discrepancy between these original texts and the current Bible?
I'll just comment that you have a lot of assumptions here, and the order is a little confusing. You should start by questioning the provenance and origins of the writings (and only one of the four Gospels, and maybe a few of the Epistles are likely to have been written by eye-witnesses). The time of writing is also important - the fact that the Gospels are usually dated to decades after Jesus died is important.
But to sum up. Only one Gospel and maybe a few Epistles are at all likely to have been written by eye-witnesses to Jesus' life. The Gospels don't agree, in some cases to an extent that should be surprising. There are some known changes in the manuscripts - and some people fight bitterly over them. And, I am given to understand, there may be quite a few more which are not so well known, because there is a gap in our knowledge.
quote:
When these questions are answered I believe I can then look at how Jesus and the New Testament treated the Old Testament. Did Jesus believe in creation? If Jesus existed, and was God as He claimed, would it not then logically follow that if Jesus believed it, Creation happened?
And there are some more questions here you should think about. To what extent can we reliably tell Jesus' beliefs from the Gospels even if they are largely accurate ? How much do we have to rely on unreliable inference ? (Even if they were accurate on events, the Gospels can't be expected to reliably report speech word-for-word, the more so, since it is unlikely that Jesus spoke in Greek, adding translation to the limits of human memory as a source of error)
And even if Jesus is God, to what extent did he have God's knowledge ? Isn't he reported as saying that he did not have the full knowledge of God - specifically denying that he knew the exact timing of the end ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Raphael, posted 04-10-2014 8:37 PM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Raphael, posted 04-11-2014 1:06 PM PaulK has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 190 of 262 (723970)
04-11-2014 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Raphael
04-10-2014 8:37 PM


Re: Repetitive
I think we're a on a little bit of a different page. I do not believe attempting to argue Intelligent Design with science is beneficial. I do not believe arguing the existence of God with science is beneficial. This is clearly exhibited in creationists on this forum (and in general) who are outnumbered, out-smarted, and in general get very frustrated and create a stereotype for other creationists.
That's because the creationist arguments are contradicted by the facts that science has discovered. It has nothing to do with the patience, intelligence, or number of creationists. It has to do with the evidence.
The reason for this perspective is science cannot test the supernatural.
I view it quite differently. You don't want science to test the supernatural because you wouldn't like the outcome. The supernatural is a realm that theists have invented so that their beliefs can not be questioned. You want to pretend that you can make grand claims, and then not allow a single person to question them. That is why the supernatural exists.
I do believe the cause for the universe is God. I believe being the most important part. For me, creationism is not the central part of my belief. The character Jesus Christ is. Therefore, when deciding whether or not to believe in the validity of creation, I look to the testimonies about the life and teachings of Jesus as my "norm," or standard, and ask a series of questions. Jesus claimed He was God. Is this true? Are the writings about him legitimate? Were there any eyewitnesses? How many? Do the eyewitnesses agree? Are there manuscripts? How many? Dating to as close to antiquity as possible, that exist to which I can point to as sources for the Bible I read today? Is there any discrepancy between these original texts and the current Bible?
When these questions are answered I believe I can then look at how Jesus and the New Testament treated the Old Testament. Did Jesus believe in creation? If Jesus existed, and was God as He claimed, would it not then logically follow that if Jesus believed it, Creation happened?
You never think of looking at the evidence found in biology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Raphael, posted 04-10-2014 8:37 PM Raphael has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Raphael, posted 04-11-2014 1:57 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 191 of 262 (723972)
04-11-2014 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Raphael
04-10-2014 9:15 PM


Re: The opening is here.
A good example of this is caffeine. You can find any number of articles on the internet about the "10 Benefits of Caffeine" and just as many articles on the "10 Terrible Effects Of Caffeine."
If the article on the "10 Terrible Effects of Caffeine" was based on several well established clinical trials, and the "10 Benefits of Caffeine" was based on the testimony of a 2,000 year old man who claimed that Zeus told him of those 10 benefits, which would you go with? How much time would you seriously considered the prophet of Zeus compared to the hard scientific evidence?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Raphael, posted 04-10-2014 9:15 PM Raphael has not replied

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


Message 192 of 262 (723982)
04-11-2014 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Raphael
04-10-2014 1:22 PM


Re: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
Raph writes:
"amalgam of ancient myths and tales" I am curious to know where you got this idea from?
The bible is very arguably a mish mash of pagan beliefs repackaged, rebranded and manipulated over time. Genesis is in large part a rehashing of the ancient Gilgamesh myth (garden, naked, corrupted by woman, wickednesss into the pure world, great flood as punishment etc. etc.). Mithra the Roman deity (also Mitra the Indian God of the Sun and Persian Mithra) was born of a virgin, crucified and resurrected 3 days later, his birth was celebrated on the winter solstice and his resurrection celebrated at the time we now call Easter, his followers took part in a ritual involving bread and wine and the first Christian places of worship were built on temples originally devoted to him. The story of Moses bears remarkable similarity to the story of the Sun-god Bacchus. Psalms 29 appears to be a direct adaption of a Canaanite hymn to the storm god Baal. We could go on.but the parallels are so plentiful this could constitute a topic in it’s own right.
Here is a link outlining some of these parallels Link
Raph writes:
Pray that God would "reveal himself"
Right. So you’ve read the bible and prayed and had some sort of internal/subjective experiences and then attributed God as the cause of those experiences.
What makes you think the Christian God is in any way responsible for those experiences? You appear to have created a gap for yourself and then filled it with the thing you were looking for. That would appear to be somewhat circular and most definitely self-re-enforcing. It’s patently a flawed approach to seeking reliable knowledge. And what about all those who take your approach but with other holy books and conclude other gods — Why would I look for my deity in the bible rather than the Koran or the Bhagavad-Gita?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Raphael, posted 04-10-2014 1:22 PM Raphael has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 193 of 262 (723984)
04-11-2014 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Raphael
04-10-2014 1:22 PM


Re: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
Raphael writes:
Pray that God would "reveal himself"....
Just out of curiosity, why would we have to pray that God would reveal Himself. Can't He make up His own mind when to reveal Himself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Raphael, posted 04-10-2014 1:22 PM Raphael has not replied

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


Message 194 of 262 (723989)
04-11-2014 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by PaulK
04-11-2014 1:54 AM


Re: Repetitive
You are asking great questions. As I said earlier, I would like to create a new thread at some point describing my entire thought process on the matter, but for the sake of discussion
PaulK writes:
I'll just comment that you have a lot of assumptions here, and the order is a little confusing. You should start by questioning the provenance and origins of the writings (and only one of the four Gospels, and maybe a few of the Epistles are likely to have been written by eye-witnesses). The time of writing is also important - the fact that the Gospels are usually dated to decades after Jesus died is important.
Sure. Assumptions are part of the process. Perhaps a better sequence of questions would be more efficient, the way I listed was kind of the bare bones way I think. I started with Jesus because most would probably say he is the most prolific character in Christianity. I am trying to imagine if I were looking at it from the perspective of someone who has not grown up being taught that scripture is true. What would I have heard about Christianity? Jesus is kind of what my mind goes to, as I am interested in things that don't really make sense
The time of writing IS important, I'm glad you brought that up. The fact that the gospels are usually dated after Jesus died IS important. Those things are important to establish this position, but in no way does knowing the answers to these questions compromise the line of reasoning, in my opinion. These things are simply stepping stones.
The things you have brought up are all important.
Only one Gospel and maybe a few Epistles are at all likely to have been written by eye-witnesses to Jesus' life. The Gospels don't agree, in some cases to an extent that should be surprising. There are some known changes in the manuscripts - and some people fight bitterly over them.
I'm glad you mentioned these things. They beg questions, when I see them. Since only a few of the books in the NT are written by eye witnesses, do these eye-witnesses agree? To what degree do they deviate? To what degree do the gospels disagree? Do they REALLY disagree? If they do, is there a reason or purpose? What is changed? Which manuscripts don't match up? If there are manuscripts that deviate, why do they deviate?. We can't be lazy in our questioning. We can't be lazy in our exegesis. Everything has a purpose.
To what extent can we reliably tell Jesus' beliefs from the Gospels even if they are largely accurate ? How much do we have to rely on unreliable inference ? (Even if they were accurate on events, the Gospels can't be expected to reliably report speech word-for-word, the more so, since it is unlikely that Jesus spoke in Greek, adding translation to the limits of human memory as a source of error)
These are also great questions. I'm so glad this ball got rolling. To what extent CAN we reliably tell Jesus' beliefs? What texts demonstrate these things. Jesus was largely very cryptic and rather odd in his conversations with people. It is difficult to get a grasp on what he believed, as there is no "Here is a list of theological concepts Jesus believed and taught while he was here" chapter anywhere. But what did he teach? Really? And there is the component of translation. How much of a difference would it have made to the meaning of what he said? All valuable questions.
And even if Jesus is God, to what extent did he have God's knowledge ? Isn't he reported as saying that he did not have the full knowledge of God - specifically denying that he knew the exact timing of the end ?
You're talking about Matthew 24. Jesus is telling the disciples not to worry about the end, to not look for signs, for nobody can determine the day or the hour of the end.
4 Jesus answered: Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. - Matt. 24:4-6
The exact text you quoted was Matt 24:36 -
quote:
36 But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father.
This demonstrates that there were some limitations to the incarnation. Omniscience appears to be one of them, according to this text. This speaks to the sovereignty of the Father and the sacrifice Christ made to even become human, but doesn't really say much about Jesus' theological positions. Born and raised a Jew, Jesus would definitely have believed in creation--one text that exemplifies this is his comments on the Sabbath:
quote:
The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath - Mark 2:27]
A reference to creation is not an admonition of believing in creation, but that is where the limits of the text come in. Inference must be used at some points, just like in determining anything else without having all the data on hand. But above all else, this is a faith issue. We look at everything the text gives us, and ask ourselves, why does the text not extrapolate on this? Is it meant to be unclear? Is it important? Why/why not?
Regards!
- Raph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2014 1:54 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2014 1:59 PM Raphael has replied

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


Message 195 of 262 (724013)
04-11-2014 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Taq
04-11-2014 12:20 PM


Re: Repetitive
Taq writes:
You don't want science to test the supernatural because you wouldn't like the outcome. The supernatural is a realm that theists have invented so that their beliefs can not be questioned. You want to pretend that you can make grand claims, and then not allow a single person to question them. That is why the supernatural exists.
Science, by definition, is a "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." Source
It is reasonable for you to feel this way, and a fair conclusion. But this is a pretty lazy assumption, to be honest, because it pretty much denies the majority of people who claim to have had, and believe in, the supernatural. But consensus doesn't mean truth exactly, so let's ignore that for now.
Science, by definition, only tests the natural world. This doesn't mean the supernatural cannot be confirmed, or at the very least, on a faith basis, be shown to exist on a personal basis. Science can be the method by which we test for evidence that may infer the existence of the supernatural, but it's job does not include the ability to analyze god/gods/magic/angels/demons/ghosts/nirvana/whatever else.
If we're going to talk about faith, and the supernatural, it doesn't make sense for me to debate on your terms, being judged by your criteria as to whether or not faith is valid. Just like it doesn't make sense for me to evaluate science by using my faith to judge whether or not you are scientifically correct about a specific testable hypothesis.
You never think of looking at the evidence found in biology?
Not at all. Not that evidence cannot be found, it's just that #1, I do not have enough biological education/knowledge to form a valid argument, and #2, it is unnecessary. My entire argument is that creation is a faith based position not a scientific attempt to validate assumptions made by believers.
Straggler writes:
The bible is very arguably a mish mash of pagan beliefs repackaged, rebranded and manipulated over time. Genesis is in large part a rehashing of the ancient Gilgamesh myth (garden, naked, corrupted by woman, wickednesss into the pure world, great flood as punishment etc. etc.). Mithra the Roman deity (also Mitra the Indian God of the Sun and Persian Mithra) was born of a virgin, crucified and resurrected 3 days later, his birth was celebrated on the winter solstice and his resurrection celebrated at the time we now call Easter, his followers took part in a ritual involving bread and wine and the first Christian places of worship were built on temples originally devoted to him. The story of Moses bears remarkable similarity to the story of the Sun-god Bacchus. Psalms 29 appears to be a direct adaption of a Canaanite hymn to the storm god Baal. We could go on.but the parallels are so plentiful this could constitute a topic in it’s own right.
As always, Straggler impresses . What you are doing is literary criticism. This is a valuable tool when looking at scripture.
- The fact that the Genesis story is confirmed in an earlier document strengthens rather than hinders the validity of said story. If the story happened it would have been written about before Moses.
- Virgin birth prophesied in Isaiah is not the point of the prophecy, common misconception (see my post, 188) Source
- Christianity definitely borrowed and sold out to paganism during the 3rd and especially 4th centuries.
My point, we cannot be lazy in our dealing with the text. There are parallels in history. If there was a story exactly the same as the American Revolution written about a thousand years earlier, the more recent history would by no means be invalided, it would simply be analyzed with just as much literary criticism and value as the previous history. Instead of chalking up similarities in history, a literary critic would ask questions. Why are the stories so similar? Is there a reason the stories seem borrowed? Was there some compromising on the part of the author? Plagiarism? For what purpose?
Right. So you’ve read the bible and prayed and had some sort of internal/subjective experiences and then attributed God as the cause of those experiences.
What makes you think the Christian God is in any way responsible for those experiences?
These are great questions. The experience is based on claims. Like:
quote:
You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.- Jer. 29:13
quote:
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. - Matt. 7:7
The promise is that when we do the seeking, he is faithful to reveal himself
When looking at scriptural claims like this, one must ask some questions. My thought process looks like:
- Seriously? If I do the seeking, God will be found. Sounds simple, but is it?
- The text requires me to take God at his word, on faith alone. How do I do that?
-Am I trying to "feel something" or expecting something to happen?
If you're going to examine the claims of a document, you need to take it seriously. It does seem dumb. It does not make sense. But it promises something. Seek, and you will find what you're looking for.
And what about all those who take your approach but with other holy books and conclude other gods — Why would I look for my deity in the bible rather than the Koran or the Bhagavad-Gita
This is a pretty important question. Those who have experienced searching for God/gods in different places than "the Bible" have just as valid as an experience. But the Bible is kind of unfair. It claims to be the Way and the Truth. Or rather, Jesus does. This also begs questions.
ringo writes:
Just out of curiosity, why would we have to pray that God would reveal Himself. Can't He make up His own mind when to reveal Himself?
No. Usually, He can't. Although sometimes he does. We can examine those times. But. Jesus said the Father is drawing people to himself (John 6:44). He has done his part. We want some sort of easy solution or "sign on the moon" or really any situation in which we don't have to be vulnerable. We want to be right. We want to not feel stupid. But the truth of it is, everything is freely given and accessibly offered , and searching for that is, in fact, easy. It's sort of like a "giving up" of the comfort of believing in facts, and being open to something that cannot be proven. If you're not looking for anything, you won't find anything.
Hope this helps!
- Raph
Edited by Raphael, : changed wording!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 12:20 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Taq, posted 04-11-2014 3:06 PM Raphael 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