Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on August 09, 2004, 10:54:18 pm
-
ok, I think I've figured out why our debates tend to devolve into meaninglessness, we don't have a structured set of rules, so as a test of this I'm makeing another religon thread and setting some rules.
all responces to this thread must be in the form of a 'yes', 'no', or another question. another question being the prefered responce.
so with that I will start things off with the seed question.
:
If there is a God, how can I know that it exsists?
-
Oooh, I like this. Its like that one game in Who's Line is it Anyway where they have to speak only in questions ;) ;)
Fine, I'll pay along.
How can you know if God exists? Well, do you classify know as having scientific proof, or just a gut feeling?
-
How do you not having scientific proof that God exists as your colon?
-
hey wassup everyone?
isn't the point about God that if you have faith, you find proof, and if you don't have faith, there will never be enough proof?
-
More or less. Although, I'd replace have with need.
-
How can I or anyone else know anything about a supernatural being when we're all natural beings?
-
good one, kami.
so KT, you mean 'anyone who needs faith will find proof, anyone who doesn't need faith will never find proof?' but that's obvious, it doesn't need stating.
besides which, who doesn't need faith?
-
why does anyone _need_ faith?
-
So it really comes down to:
Proof v.s. Faith
Sure you can *try* to toss in other junk like Descarte's little gamble thing, but in the end it's proof v.s. faith.
Next!
-
nanana, it's proof+faith vs noproof+nofaith
-
Originally posted by icespeed
nanana, it's proof+faith vs noproof+nofaith
If you have proof, then present it.
-
(it seems hitting escape has the same effect as hitting the reset form button)
were any of the last three posts 'yes', 'no', or a question?
what would Mr. Trebek have to say about this?
can faith without reason lead to knowledge?
-
Can't faith be used to value *anything* as knowledge if it were valid? What use is a definition of knowledge that makes knowledge totally arbitrary?
-
Who's Mr. Trebek?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
...were any of the last three posts 'yes', 'no', or a question?
Well, your first question wasn't a 'yes' or 'no' question :P. But if you're question meant: "Do you think/believe there is a God ?" , I'd go for 'No', since I haven't seen anything that would make me belive otherwise. I'm not talking about scientific fact, I mean personal experience and stuff.....I can't think of one good reason why I should believe there is an omnipotent being, and I refuse to believe something just because a lot of people tell me to do so and because this particular belief is around for several thousands of years.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
Who's Mr. Trebek?
why should we care?
-
isn't the point about God that if you have faith, you find proof, and if you don't have faith, there will never be enough proof?
"If you presuppose the existence of God, you will find a way to justify it; and if you do not presuppose the existence of God, you will find no evidence for his being?"
Descarte's little gamble thing
Pascal's Wager, which assumes God is blind... not a particularly wise assumption, I feel.
why does anyone _need_ faith?
Because it is difficult to prove, inductively or deductively, a number of assumptions that we make in the going-about of our daily lives... assumptions like "we are real," "I am me," "this world is real," "everything including memories of past times weren't constructed five seconds ago," that sort of thing.
-
Is it possible to have a poll for each post in a thread? Then we could have a 'yes-no' poll for each post that is a question, and moderate away everything else :nod:
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
How can I or anyone else know anything about a supernatural being when we're all natural beings?
Methinketh that the natural would never know the supernatural if the supernatural wanted to stay hidden. Following that idea, it would require supernatural relevation for the natural to ever know the supernatural.
Aspa, unfortunately that sort of thing isn't possible with the present system. One poll per thread. ;)
-
there is no god .... theyr just super advanced aliens who we showed to that we were retarded enough not to bellive them instead we killed them .... so they left and maybe possibly will come back
-
*carefully phrases post* Ashrak, have you read the rules above? ;)
-
If you have faith why is your religion better/more correct than any other religion?
-
nevermind, disregard.
-
Another century old question:
Is a lightning rod on a church spire not a sign for lack of faith ?
-
Originally posted by Setekh
*carefully phrases post* Ashrak, have you read the rules above? ;)
/*looks at Setekh's first post*/
have you? :)
(same goes for Blaise Russel, and Col. Fishguts)
and you people don't know Alex "all answeres must be in the form of a question" Trebek?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
and you people don't know Alex "all answeres must be in the form of a question" Trebek?
Yes.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
/*looks at Setekh's first post*/
have you? :)
(same goes for Blaise Russel, and Col. Fishguts)
and you people don't know Alex "all answeres must be in the form of a question" Trebek?
I don't know what enforcing the 'all answers are questions' rule will accomplish, apart from adding question marks to the end of all sentences in the thread. Devolution into flames is prevented by the maturity of the participants, not by the presence of interrogatives.
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
I don't know what enforcing the 'all answers are questions' rule will accomplish, apart from adding question marks to the end of all sentences in the thread....
You have to see the positive side effects. By discussing the rules, the thread is now already on the 2nd page without any flammage occuring....and this is officialy a religous duscussion thread, I remind you ! That's quite extraordinary.
And to make Bob happy I pull a Kosh-voice: 'Yes'
-
Sure there won't be any flames. But there won't be much of a discussion. No one is answering anyones questions with any degree of conviction.
-
I gave a serious answer in my first post in this thread, and it even had a 'No' in it ..... but somehow I seem to fail in understanding the rules completely....since I got disqualified by Bob anyway.
But are we expecting answers to a question towards which anyone can make up his own answer and no-one can 'prove' it as being wrong or right ?
-
Origionally posted by Blaise Russel
Because it is difficult to prove, inductively or deductively, a number of assumptions that we make in the going-about of our daily lives... assumptions like "we are real," "I am me," "this world is real," "everything including memories of past times weren't constructed five seconds ago," that sort of thing.
Isn't that because in order for induction/deduction to work, one must make a few basic assumptions like those?
Originally posted by Col. Fishguts
Another century old question:
Is a lightning rod on a church spire not a sign for lack of faith ?
Have you ever heard about when a town in Europe decided to store all its gunpowder in a church during a storm?:D
Had the ecclesiastics of the Church of San Nazaro in Brecia given in to repeated urgings to install a lightning rod, they might have averted a terrible catastrophe. The Republic of Venice had stored in the vaults of this church several thousand pounds of gunpowder. In 1767, 17 years after Franklin's discovery, no rod having been placed on the church, it was struck by lightning and the gunpowder exploded. One-sixth of the city was destroyed and over 3,000 lives were lost because the priests refused to install the "heretical rod."
-
But are we expecting answers to a question towards which anyone can make up his own answer and no-one can 'prove' it as being wrong or right ?
Well, one can discover that certain systems are less unwise. For example, faith, while undoubtedly useful, is not the best tool for finding things out about the universe or exploring ideas and concepts - science and philosophy do a better job.
Isn't that because in order for induction/deduction to work, one must make a few basic assumptions like those?
For deduction, certainly. Maybe not for induction, because you're working from the other direction - from the results towards the underlying reason. Like, "things fall down, therefore gravity," not "gravity, therefore things fall down." Though in practice one would have to assume that the world is constant, in order for induction to have any use.
-
I don't believe that philosophy is about arriving at conclusions. It's about asking questions with no answers.
-
I don't believe that philosophy is about arriving at conclusions. It's about asking questions with no answers.
So what is it exactly that philosophers produce, then?
-
Here's mine 10-cents worth:
Didn't Einstein say, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"?
Rampage
-
Yeah, but he also said
"What you call God, I call wonder..."
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Following that idea, it would require supernatural relevation for the natural to ever know the supernatural.
Or could only the natural know the natural while the supernatural only know the supernatural?
Could everything be merely natural?
-
Philosophers "produce" nothing. The philosopher simply invites people to look beyond a facade of assumptions. There is no "practical" reason for philosophy.
-
Is it not possible God is but a part of man's own psychological view of the world?
-
Originally posted by Rampage
Didn't Einstein say, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"?
Yes. What did he mean by "lame" though? Did he mean that science by itself is unsatisfactory for finding all the answers to the world? Why would science be crippled by being unable to give the answers that faith can give? Are the answers faith gives not totally arbitrary?
-
Has anyone here been visited by the holy spirit?
-
I would answer but...
-
But?
(edit) There`s no mistaking it, you`ll know it when it happens, maybe not why.. But you will know. :D
-
I got EXTREMELY flamed the last time and I'm tired about
-
Ah, I understand.
-
My first wife was a real treat, (eye opener). She showed me what NOT to look for in a wife..
I once asked her if she worked for the devil and she replied, I am the devil. :lol: She threatened to stab me while I slep. Well for the next few days I didn`t sleep much. :nervous:
(edit) back on topic. Faith and prayer is all that is required.
-
Originally posted by Whitelight
Has anyone here been visited by the holy spirit?
No. Is it likely that someone who purportedly was visited by the holy spirit would be converted to christianity and why would this happen? Would one not seek a natural, scientific explanation to this (e.g. was high on crack, dreaming, alien interference) rather than placing the events causation on supernatural entities, especially if they weren't faithful to begin with?
-
:lol:
Shows how little you know about my experience, I swear if you people don't stop with your assumptions. I seriously hate bigots, why can't you just accept that people can and will believe whatever they want? Does it make them any less of a person? Why do you have to push us down and completely disrespect us without bringing your own proof he doesn't exist? We can't prove he doesn't, why must you all accept that people should be treated like people, unless they are inhumane to others (I.E. Suicide Bombers)?
Huh?
answer me this?
-
That means it hasen`t happened yet, but it doesen`t mean it won`t in the future.
(edit) Let me state though that it won`t happen to everyone.
-
jbjcagle, I don`t think he ment any disrespect, but he is intitled to his opion. I don`t take it personally if he disagrees with me. :)
(edit) Science hasen`t proved that god doesen`t exsist eather, and it won`t. :)
We are all given the right to decide what we believe in. :D
-
jdjtcagle: Erm. How exactly was I being a bigot? Particularly, how was I "completely disrespecting" you when I was musing about the general nature of faith vs. logical inquiry?
-
How would one explain being visited by the holy ghost. Now thats a tuff one..
The best discription I can give might not make a lot of sence, but in my view its like a vision quest that can last for a few days, or go on for weeks or even months in some cases, also without the use of drugs of corse.. :p
-
why do people use science as an excuse not to believe or disbelieve or whatever in the existence of God? the thing is, science looks at the physical world; God is more than physical. so what's the point of looking for proof of God through science?
anyway I think faith can be an entirely logical decision, so can someone explain exactly where the contradiction lies between faith and logic?
-
Originally posted by icespeed
anyway I think faith can be an entirely logical decision, so can someone explain exactly where the contradiction lies between faith and logic?
Well, what isn't justified by someone's faith? Is there anything that can't be? What's the use of faith if it can justify any viewpoint? How is it logical to pick one thing to believe in (regarding one of these beliefs to be true can sometimes force others to be false, e.g. monotheism) when faith can justify many others?
-
science doesn't look at the physical world, it looks at what can be known, it's a way of determineing fact, of any nature.
eh... this thread had potental, thanks everyone for... not playing by the rules.
-
Originally posted by Whitelight
(edit) Science hasen`t proved that god doesen`t exsist eather, and it won`t. :)
If, in theory, you were presented with incontrovertible scientific proof that God did not exist, would you renounce your faith?
(Note: Do not ask me to define such proof. That's what the "In Theory" part is all about"
-
what, Bob? don't be so dictatorial about it, rules are there to guide not to restrict.
kami, you're entirely right. but the point is to pick the one which is right, and because it's right, you have faith in it. that's the logic part. i don't think faith justifies something, exactly.
the question then being, how to pick the one which is right? which comes back to proof, only this time it's not faith vs proof.
if science doesn't look at the physical world- _just_ the physical world, I mean- what does it look at? who takes those experiments about esp and so on seriously? that's science, isn't it? so why do the hardcore scientists dismiss it?
-
Originally posted by icespeed
what, Bob? don't be so dictatorial about it, rules are there to guide not to restrict.
kami, you're entirely right. but the point is to pick the one which is right, and because it's right, you have faith in it. that's the logic part. i don't think faith justifies something, exactly.
the question then being, how to pick the one which is right? which comes back to proof, only this time it's not faith vs proof.
if science doesn't look at the physical world- _just_ the physical world, I mean- what does it look at? who takes those experiments about esp and so on seriously? that's science, isn't it? so why do the hardcore scientists dismiss it?
Do you consider behaviour a part of the physical world? Science studies that. What about evolution? It's a process outside the physical world, though admittedly guided and linked to events within it, and science studies it. The question of alternate universes, cosmology, etc. etc. - all stuff outside the physical world that science studies, or is at least concerned with. Though, if you want to get specific, they can;t be studied scientifically because they can't be experimented on (ala the scientific method).
As for the esp experiments and suchlike, they're tainted - nobody trusts their integrity any more, and often the experiments undertaken aren;t done scientifically (ie. the analysis of one dependent variable against an independent in a repeatable fashion.)
-
@icespeed:
[damned faster typer person...]
the rules I put up were specificly there to restrict
Originally posted by Bobboau
it looks at what can be known, it's a way of determineing fact, of any nature.
have you ever heard of phycology, pathology, studies of behavour and emotion, none of that is physical, it's mental and yet there is science to analise it, becase it is real, and testable.
-
All concepts of right and wrong, or anything for that matter, are based entirely on the perceptions of the person doing the observing/choosing/moralising. Therefore, everything is subjective and objectivity is merely a myth, perpetuated by biggots and power-mongers in an effort to validate their biased opinions.
Happy?
-
There's no distinction between "physical" and "mental." If it can be tested and analyzed, it is by definition a part of the physical universe.
-
it's the diference between an action and the object makeing the action, there two diferent things
hey the reset form thingy is gone!
yaeyes!!!
-
The universe only has one set of laws: The laws of physics. Everything that we can analyze is, in one way or another, bound to those laws, and to those laws only. Any other distinction is purely our own conception, created to help compartmentalize our view of the universe.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
kami, you're entirely right. but the point is to pick the one which is right, and because it's right, you have faith in it. that's the logic part. i don't think faith justifies something, exactly.
the question then being, how to pick the one which is right? which comes back to proof, only this time it's not faith vs proof.
Hmm, so does that mean you prioritize proof over faith?
You mention it "comes back to proof", so does that mean once you prove something is right it is then "worthy" (for lack of a better word) for people to have faith in?
What then, is Chrisanity's (or any religion really) proof? What is the proof that is convincing people to have faith in it?
-
Parting of the Red Sea. Jesus being reborn. Prophecy coming to pass......
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
There's no distinction between "physical" and "mental." If it can be tested and analyzed, it is by definition a part of the physical universe.
Yes!? Down with dualism!? *notices those weren't questions and hastily sticks ?s in*
-
Behaviour's not part of the physical world, bw, it's got effect but it's not a _thing_. evolution's a theory with some bits of evidence fossilised in physicality. science basically _is_ the scientific method; otherwise it's speculation and philosophy.
bob, never heard of phycology, care to explain that? pathology is the study of disease- what causes it, how the symptoms come about, and those are effects coming from physical things. studies of behaviour and emotion- i grant you that one. but they come from physical causes, indirectly.
fp: universe has several sets of laws but only physics happens to have direct physical effect.
(i'm not trying to be annoying or whatever bob, but how can anyone have a decent discussion if you're only allowed to ask questions?)
-
Are you people stoned?
Anything with relates to the study of cause and effect, is science.
-
see kami, i'm trying not to be in any way giving offense at all. probably was a bad idea since i've just compromised myself... personally i have faith that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ justifies me and gives me eternal life with God after death on this world. why? cos it makes sense. JC was a real man who really existed who really died and who really came back to life again. and there is really proof for all that. but if I outright went and said that, you see, everyone would go full exploding at me for being 'intolerant' and 'narrowminded' etc etc so i didnt. i have faith because there is proof; there is proof because i have faith.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
JC was a real man who really existed who really died and who really came back to life again. and there is really proof for all that.
Actually there's real proof that the Romans crucified a Jewish preacher by the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Nothing else.
-
dude, ever read a book called the bible?
(now _that_ was a question.)
-
dude, "it's in a book" is not proof
-
and I'm as good as stoned, realy tiered
-
Real proof = corroborating evidence for the bible. There're millions of pages of religious writings from all around the globe - what makes the bible so special that we should take it as truth as opposed to, say, egyptian writings?
-
by your defenition then there is proof that superman is real, that the xmen are amung us, that the matrix has you and that there is no god, why becase I just wrote it down.
-
just explaine how it makes sence to you , becase it makes abosutely no sence to me, and please keep in mind I went to a catholic highschool, spare me the passages
-
Originally posted by icespeed
bob, never heard of phycology, care to explain that?
Actually - phycology is the study of Algae... I think he meant Psychology.
EDIT - fixing it - Algae, not fungi
-
The X-men are among us.
There's the girl with the X-ray eyes and the super-strong 5 year old.
-
many religious writings (i'm not gonna say all since i'm no expert) are prophecies, metaphysical sort of writings.
the new testament, with the exception of the revelation of john (which still sort of counts) is a collection of biographies and epistles. These would have been circulated throughout the roman world where the early christian churches were established.
the gospels- the biographies- recorded the life of JC. if anything in there were wrong, there would have been some sort of written record of an alternative history. as far as i know there's the jewish oral tradition that JC was stolen from the tomb and the roman guards were bribed to remain silent- both of which being extremely unlikely. anyone know of any other 'proof's?
the gospels were _historical_ documents, not random writings of some prophet. apparently there's far less proof for the existence of julius caesar than there was for JC. and if they prove the existence of JC, then you can't just ignore the the half of each gospel documenting his resurrection.
-
I'd like to cite Elvis as reason why the ressurection story is bull****.....
-
okay, bob. here's how i see it.
God created the world. how he did this, i dunno, could be big bang, could be quantum, whatever, the methods aren't the important bits. why do i think God created the world? cos the probability of a universe randomly coming into existence is just amazingly amazingly infinitesimally small. it's easier to belive it was created.
if God created the world, he also created us. therefore he owns us, or at least rules over us- like a potter and his pot.
if God rules over us, and we disobey him and reject him, then we are in the wrong. and we do disobey and reject him. all those people who say people have a 'spark of goodness' or are 'inherently good' are deluded- just look at our society, what we do to our fellow human beings.
if we are in the wrong, we deserve to be punished. which we are. through death, and suffering, and separation from God. (who gave us life, don't forget). And when i say death i mean forever.
JC, who was God, came down to earth as a man, died in our place, was raised to life (as documented by the gospels).
so what? we can either have faith that JC did so, or we can continue as we are.
edit: oh yeah, i forgot the most important bit. since JC died for us and was raised again, that means we don't have to die the eternal death, we can live after our physical death. that's what having faith in JC will do for us.
-
Originally posted by Clive
I'd like to cite Elvis as reason why the ressurection story is bull****.....
yeah, but the evidence is inconsistent. the gospels aren't.
-
P&T overdid that metaphore,
the books of the bible were put together by a commity of bishops becose the roman emperor constantine wanted a cannon (not the gun type) he ordered a bunch of bibles and the chirstian hierarchy didn't want to tell him a few days later that his extreemly expensive books (remember long time ago, books == supar dupar(these were misspelled on purpose) expencive) were worth all of TP becase they changed the cannon, shortly thereafter the cannon was used to persicude other _christian_ sects that had _other acounts_ of the life and times of Jesus, why, becase they wern't part of the cannon and that was herricy against the state (of rome), look up the gospel of thomas for one such example.
and as I was saying as good as stoned.
-
they put the canon together partially by the holy spirit (which of course you won't accept as valid) and partially because they held together. and were reliable.
i've read the gospel of thomas. its a collection of mystic, gnomic, what's the word? sayings attributed to jesus apparently handed down to the disciple thomas secretly. the gospel of thomas was written some several hundred years AD, which means the disciple thomas probably didn't write it, meaning the author lied about who he was, which means it's probably not all that reliable anyway. there's no historical verification of the sayings.
with the canon gospels, remember that they were written by entirely different people- a jewish tax collector, a greek doctor, a follower of the apostle peter, and an apostle. these are people from completely different walks of life, it's not like they just randomly got together and concocted this story around some guy they knew and then wrote it down.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
many religious writings (i'm not gonna say all since i'm no expert) are prophecies, metaphysical sort of writings.
the new testament, with the exception of the revelation of john (which still sort of counts) is a collection of biographies and epistles. These would have been circulated throughout the roman world where the early christian churches were established.
the gospels- the biographies- recorded the life of JC. if anything in there were wrong, there would have been some sort of written record of an alternative history. as far as i know there's the jewish oral tradition that JC was stolen from the tomb and the roman guards were bribed to remain silent- both of which being extremely unlikely. anyone know of any other 'proof's?
the gospels were _historical_ documents, not random writings of some prophet. apparently there's far less proof for the existence of julius caesar than there was for JC. and if they prove the existence of JC, then you can't just ignore the the half of each gospel documenting his resurrection.
That is... among the thinnest arguments I've heard in a long time. OK - first off, what's unlikely about the body being stolen and the guards being bribed, when compared to the guy coming back to life?
Second of all, using the book to corroborate the book is not proof. That should be obvious.
Third of all, history is written by the winners. As Bob said, much of what you take as the truth is simply what the church decided was the truth when the roman empire converted to christianity. Moreover, Jesus Christ had very little impact during his life - even the bible itself says that. There's no alternative points of view because at the time nobody literate really cared enough, beyond chalking up that they'd crucified the guy.
Fourthly, where did you hear there's less evidence for the existence of Julius Caeser than there is for Jesus Christ? The romans were compulsive records keepers - there's a crapload of written and artistic accounts of his existence. Moreover, we're not arguing the existence of Jesus here - that's corroborated historical fact.
Finally, all you've really said was that the New Testament represents a whole bunch of biographies. There're life stories in other religions and mythologies as well - Thor for example had a crapload of stories about his life and times. Arjuna, Perseus, Herakles - all well documented lives, many probably based on real figures - I doubt you believe in them, so what makes christian writings any more true?
-
no they all wrote about the founder of there religous sect, useing the stories they were told as a guide, the cannon gospels were writen a good while AD too you know, they wern't writen by the people they were atributed to.
argue with BW he's awake enough to compose a sentence...
-
bw: maybe i should have explained a bit more, only i was lazy.
1. firstly these are roman guards we're talking about, they're the mostly highly trained bunch of soldiers around, they're not open to corruption cos if they were and got found out they'd get really severely punished, we're talking flogging and death, not docking their wages. secondly the people who would have stolen the body- disciples and followers- were racked with grief, their leader had just been crucified which is the execution of criminals, it's not like any of them would have been together enough to steal his body. thirdly the people who would have stolen the body- disciples and followers- wouldn't have done so, seeing as this is their spiritual _leader_, stealing his body's going to amount to desecration, especially since he had been given a nice burial by joseph of arimathea already, been shown the proper respects, etc etc.
2. the book is a collection of documents written by many different authors, corroboration is perfectly legitimate.
3. alternative points of view would have been given by the jewish elders, who had no interest in seeing the rise of Christianity, and who were literate.
4. okay. granted.
5. well documented? by whom? where? i'm genuinely interested. point me.
bob:
the canonical gospels were written within a century after JC's birth, i'm not an expert so i couldn't give you details, but basically they dated the documents and the epistles and made all these complicated references. when i say 'they' i'm talking about archaeologists, scholars, qualified people who know what they're doing.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
God created the world. how he did this, i dunno, could be big bang, could be quantum, whatever, the methods aren't the important bits. why do i think God created the world? cos the probability of a universe randomly coming into existence is just amazingly amazingly infinitesimally small. it's easier to belive it was created.
..........
That's why I regard God as the creator of the universe as a bit a of a "cheap explanation" (no pun intended). It's easier to believe that a supernatural being created the universe with all it's wonders in a way that it all works nicely.
But I think the idea of an universe that spontaneoulsy created itself (and is ruled by the laws of physic...and yet didn't collapse within femtoseconds, but allowed the forming of complex structures), is far more fantastic.
But then we come to the question "What was the cause for the bigbang ?" And there even the die-hard-scientist has to use his imagination and can only believe in certain theories.
And that's why I think the phrase: "What you call God, I call wonder." is pretty clever.
EDIT: Damn you fast typing people who write a whole bunch of other stuff, while I was typing my answer ;) It's early in the morning here...so have some mercy.
-
look at God as another theory for the creation of the universe, just as full of wonder as the other ones. after all, he didn't have to do it.
-
1. Mmm... iffy. The roman soldiers were disciplined, but not in the way that you think of modern discipline. They were trained to fight, to hold their position on the battlefield, and to obey their superiors, but they weren't expected to do much more than that. I'm sure you accept that roman soldiers from the same bunch whipped Jesus on his way up to Golgotha, placed the thorns on his head and gambled for his clothes and possessions? As for motive, I don't see it as outside the realm of possibility for someone to have stolen the body purely so as to create the myth of someone rising from the dead. That's gotta be a powerful motivation right there - proving your prophet (because there were lots of other prophets around at the time, with disciples, followers and miracles of their own) was the true voice/son of God.
2. Not when they all have a vested interested in producing the same ultimate package. Tat's like saying the because the X wing books in SW had multiple authors, they prove each other. You need independent corroboration before you can claim proof.
3. You just said they did provide an alternative point of view... the stolen corpse and the bribed soldiers.
5. Off the top of my head (and the second chapter in my mythology book :D), I know that Arjuna is especially well represented in the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita. The others are more spread out, over lots of littler myths and stories, mainly because they were handed down through Oral tradition. Herakles for example (in a nutshell)
-is born
-strangles snakes placed in his crib by hera
-gets married, has kids
-wife and kids killed, again by Hera
-goes nutso
-calms down a bit
-undertakes his twelve tasks
-becomes a god
-enters Olympus.
-
you know what? i don't even know why i'm doing this. as i said, those who have faith find proof; those who don't, don't. anyway.
1. it'd be embarrassing for the roman empire- or at least that bit of it in judaea- to admit that their soldiers failed, or were bribed. that's the option if JC's body was stolen. i think we've gone about as far as we can on this point, it's basically whichever opinion we think's more plausible and obviously i think mine is. and you think yours is.
2. ancient historians often have a lot less to work with, yet they manage to establish what happened with the agreement of most of the academic community. it's because it's all tied up with religion that JC's resurrection is a matter of such debate.
again let me say that these were people from completely different classes and societies, even though they might have a vested interest in getting this version of the story out there, their social differences would have resulted in contradictions and different interpretations of JC's life. but there isn't.
3. oh yeah, i did.but you said there were no alternatives.
5. if you can accept oral tradition, then isn't written tradition far more reliable? anyway i'll go have a look at some point.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
again let me say that these were people from completely different classes and societies, even though they might have a vested interest in getting this version of the story out there, their social differences would have resulted in contradictions and different interpretations of JC's life. but there isn't.
And that doesn't surprise you?
Put it this way - what additional proof do you have that Jesus was god/the son of god than you have that Santa Clause puts the presents under the tree every Christmas?
Your parents told you so? Check.
Society reinforces it? Check
It's in books? Check
If some future culture dug up our Santa mythology, how would it be different to biblical stuff?
-
well, i can see two conclusions you might draw from that. firstly, as you're saying, there's a huge conspiracy. secondly, as i'm saying, it's the truth.
as for the santa claus thing, sitting up at night on Christmas eve and not seeing him pretty much does it for me. unfortunately there's no equivalent quick and easy proof for JC as the son of God.
the funny thing is, Santa Claus- saint nicholas- was a nice guy who went around giving poor kids gifts during midwinter cos he felt sorry for them. isn't that an interesting piece of random trivia. santa claus can be traced right back to this historical personage whereas JC can be traced right back to... JC.
i was just looking at a brief summary of the mahabharata, and it occurred to me that Christianity is very plausible if you accept the basic premise of God as a loving creator of the world. Christianity's almost boring, as a religion. we're created, we're sinners, God takes our punishment, ho-hum. whereas the mahabharata is very large in scope and also very fantastical in content.
-
I'd like to point out that the Catholic Church burned a ton of books about Jesus that didn't conform to what they'd been preaching for hundreds of years.
Some managed to survive though. Like the one telling of a young Jesus who used his divine power to blind another kid who was pissing him off.
And before you go getting all fundie on me, where's your version of Jesus 1-31?
-
yeah, i've read that one too. it's quite funny, at least i thought so.
the only thing the canonical gospels (i'm gonna start referring to the other ones as apocrypha) say about JC's early years is his birth story, him getting lost at the temple of jerusalem at the age of twelve and him growing up and looked upon with favour by both God and man. i could give you a reference for that if you want.
books that don't make sense or are irrelevent, you ignore. that's logic. the apocrypha don't make sense or are irrelevent. and yes, i have actually read them, or some of them. (of course there are hundreds of scraps that could be counted 'apocrypha'.)
-
books that don't make sense or are irrelevent, you ignore. that's logic.
No, that's biggotry.
Ignoring facts that don't conform to what you believe, simply because it would mean admitting you were wrong.
-
look, if someone came up to me with irrecontrivertible proof that God does not exist, or that JC did not resurrect, then I'd give up Christianity. as it is, no one's actually done that yet.
it's like the difference between ignoring a paper published about some experiment with unclear aim, doubtful methodology, flawed analysis and calculations, but very very definite conclusion, and ignoring a paper which is about an experiment with definitive temporal cause-and-effect demonstrated, with all variables and confounders factored in, with a conservative conclusion. which would you believe?
anyway i don't like being labelled a bigot, even if it was by implication, just because i happen to believe in a religion which says all the other religions aren't right. you're being intolerant by saying what i believe isn't valid.
-
Yes, but I'm not claiming the moral high-ground.
And basically, going by that last statement, you shouldn't believe in religion.
There's absolutely no proof of the existence of God other than the scribblings of some drunken Jews.
And, as anyone with half a brain knows, you can't disprove a negative. It's like if I say "the sky is actually flourescent pink, but you all just see it wrong" I can't be proved wrong. I am wrong, but you can't prove I am.
-
what has morality to do with it? the whole point of Christianity is that none of us has the moral high ground except God, who, being God, can do whatever he likes.
sorry, what, i lost you there.
there's absolutely no proof of your existence except some random words on the net. which itself may very well not exist.
well, looks like there won't be any proof for God's non-existence. oh well, ain't that too bad.
-
So you're basing the core beliefs of your entire life on the principle of "You can't prove I'm wrong"?
Well, if you're happy living under such a negative, specious and generally whimsical belief, then you go girl.....
-
you know what? you're not much of a debater. you didn't address anything i said except the bits you didn't like and felt you could pick on by adding a few insults in. and i'm not even trying to be insulting yet.
i'm basing the core beliefs of my life on something which i found to be true, on something which if you are going to be hard-hearted and stubborn about, something which you've already rejected in your heart or soul or whatever, then you're never going to have enough 'proof' to satisfy you. the creation of the world isn't enough for you. miracles are explained away by science. there's always some other rationalisation.
there's no arguing with some people, and i'm really hungry and i still need to cook dinner so i'm going to sign off so i can take the half-hour walk home in the dark and dig around in my fridge for something to eat. good night, hope everyone sleeps well.
-
It's like 9am. Gimme a ****in' break.
there's always some other rationalisation
I wonder why.........
-
um, im in australia, its like six forty six pm and i haven't even had breakfast yet
-
I'm in the UK, and it's 9:47am. I've been up since 4pm yesterday, thus: Gimma a break.
I'm picking parts of your posts to address because I'm too tired to be typing out massive and detalied analysis of every point you're failing to make. I'm going for the easy targets because I lack the mental coherancy to properly destroy your ethical, moral and religious foundation.
-
Aren't you suppossed to be answering in questions or yes/no responses, anyway?
-
Am I?
-
"I would believe only in a god who could dance." -Friedrich Nietzsche
-
"...just because i happen to believe in a religion which says all the other religions aren't right. you're being intolerant..."
I must remember that one, it's right up there with the liberator-stryke freedom/gay marage dealy
-
Originally posted by icespeed
5. if you can accept oral tradition, then isn't written tradition far more reliable? anyway i'll go have a look at some point.
Isn't written tradition usually a transcription of folk tales / myths / etc, anyways? (with respect to religion in particular)