What's the most revealing revelation from this forum? [Archive]

bunny

05-16-2006, 12:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So basically what your saying is that everybody here has been blowing smoke with no answers over the past 3 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or that no matter how well you clearly lay out the flaws in one's thinking and provide them a map to reason, they can still choose to drive aimlessly about SMP and believe things like Jesus Christ is in heaven watching them loving them and looking forward to seeing them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a more positive experience from reading the posts here - I think many people have amended their beliefs based on the arguments presented on this forum. I have disagreed with your conclusions HLMencken but that doesnt mean I have ignored your criticisms of my arguments, nor that I am "driving aimlessly". Perhaps I am in the process of changing my worldview (and it is taking some time), or perhaps I am in the process of presenting a rebuttal which will cause you to modify your beliefs.

I think there is a lot of "smoke blowing" but there is also a high level of well informed and well argued thought presented here from time to time. I dont know that a goal of philosophy should be to find "an answer" so I dont see it as a failing if we havent provided one.

A_C_Slater

05-16-2006, 12:14 AM

God is not alive. Justice is dead. Sex is mathematics. And no one wishes for a better world for anyone.

guesswest

05-16-2006, 01:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So basically what your saying is that everybody here has been blowing smoke with no answers over the past 3 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Or that no matter how well you clearly lay out the flaws in one's thinking and provide them a map to reason, they can still choose to drive aimlessly about SMP and believe things like Jesus Christ is in heaven watching them loving them and looking forward to seeing them.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have a more positive experience from reading the posts here - I think many people have amended their beliefs based on the arguments presented on this forum. I have disagreed with your conclusions HLMencken but that doesnt mean I have ignored your criticisms of my arguments, nor that I am "driving aimlessly". Perhaps I am in the process of changing my worldview (and it is taking some time), or perhaps I am in the process of presenting a rebuttal which will cause you to modify your beliefs.

I think there is a lot of "smoke blowing" but there is also a high level of well informed and well argued thought presented here from time to time. I dont know that a goal of philosophy should be to find "an answer" so I dont see it as a failing if we havent provided one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finding an answer isn't a goal of philosophy? What is?

pilliwinks

05-16-2006, 03:08 AM

Searching?

Indiana

05-16-2006, 07:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why Jesus Christ? Why not Ganesha or Buddah or Confucius or Zeus or ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Because none of these other guys had thousands of witnesses of them performing miracles in the streets, which were written down on paper at the time, for starters. Guys like Muhammad/Buddha go out into the woods and think they might have sort of maybe seen something. Then they come back and get further convinced by their overly emotional families that they should start a religion rather than get jobs and be productive. Very different . Sample size 1 or 1000? You need to decide that. I wouldn't even waste my time with Buddism.

Indy

vhawk01

05-16-2006, 08:04 AM

David Blaine has millions of witnesses. Sample size 1000 or 1000000, you need to decide.

MidGe

05-16-2006, 08:08 AM

Strange that given the supposedly miracles etc.. there are less historical footprints about your guru than about Buddha, Mohammad, Confucious etc...

By that I mean other historical evidence, besides your sect own writings (which is npt first hand either). Seems really like religious marketing hype to me.

Interesting that you choose the very weakness of your own religion to try to valorise it.

RagnarPirate

05-16-2006, 09:10 AM

I wish for a better world for me and for the people who matter to me. I do not wish harm to the rest. As a matter of fact, I value justice in the world and have a neutral to slighly benevolent attitude towards strangers.

Indiana

05-16-2006, 10:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
David Blaine has millions of witnesses. Sample size 1000 or 1000000, you need to decide.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. That is a good point.

Indy

guesswest

05-16-2006, 11:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Searching?

[/ QUOTE ]

For what? Answers? Hidden treasure?

madnak

05-16-2006, 01:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Sex is mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]

This gets my vote. I'm really good at mathematics!

Indiana

05-16-2006, 01:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Searching?

[/ QUOTE ]

For what? Answers? Hidden treasure?

[/ QUOTE ]

Searching to make the right decision so I can stop feeling guilty as [censored] all the time about my useless lifestyle. Searching to do the right thing so that I don't have to burn for eternity in a fiery pit. Just your everyday concerns.

Indy

madnak

05-16-2006, 01:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Because none of these other guys had thousands of witnesses of them performing miracles in the streets, which were written down on paper at the time, for starters.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true of Jesus. Can you please cite some sources? All of the gospels were written well after Jesus died, and they represent virtually all of the historic record of him. This is a very big claim you're making in a very offhand way, which leads me to believe you're very ignorant of the subject.

Biased source (http://jesusneverexisted.com/)
Unbiased source (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm)
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Historicity)

Indiana

05-16-2006, 01:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because none of these other guys had thousands of witnesses of them performing miracles in the streets, which were written down on paper at the time, for starters.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true of Jesus. Can you please cite some sources? All of the gospels were written well after Jesus died, and they represent virtually all of the historic record of him. This is a very big claim you're making in a very offhand way, which leads me to believe you're very ignorant of the subject.

Biased source (http://jesusneverexisted.com/)
Unbiased source (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm)
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Historicity)

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for this.

Indiana

05-16-2006, 02:10 PM

There's nothing definitive disproving anything about Christ in these links. Am I supposed to be looking for something specific?

Indy

madnak

05-16-2006, 02:31 PM

There's nothing anywhere to disprove the existence of Christ. It's simply controversial whether he existed. I'm disputing your assertion that he "had thousands of witnesses of him performing miracles in the streets, which were written down on paper at the time," which is simply false. Even by the most fundamentalist interpretation possible, the first written records of anything resembling Jesus appeared 5 years after his supposed death.

miketurner

05-16-2006, 03:15 PM

Indiana, I sent you a PM, but in “my home” it says “PM’s sent = 0" so I don’t know if I screwed something up or what? Let me know if you got it.

Indiana

05-16-2006, 03:32 PM

got it, thanks dude. i replied.

Indy

bunny

05-16-2006, 08:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a lot of "smoke blowing" but there is also a high level of well informed and well argued thought presented here from time to time. I dont know that a goal of philosophy should be to find "an answer" so I dont see it as a failing if we havent provided one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Finding an answer isn't a goal of philosophy? What is?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it is the process of improving whatever "answer" you are working with at the moment. I dont think the goal is to necessarily reach an endpoint (although that happens from time to time). I think the goal is to know what you believe and why and to understand the weaknesses of your position.

Riddick

05-16-2006, 08:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Of all the posts here over the last few years, from all great posters and thinkers, what is the greatest revelation? I am desparate to understand my existence and grow a deeper understanding of Jesus Christ today. Point a fool in the right direction please.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.mises.org

bearly

05-16-2006, 10:13 PM

maybe the i-man has a pole and a line and a hook, baited w/ a brown trout, and he is relaxing and trolling.................b

Lestat

05-17-2006, 12:59 AM

I agree whole heartedly with you bunny! I honestly try to keep an open mind at all times. And I am always open to amend my views.

I recently met a friend in New Mexico. We drove to Phoenix, then to Vegas and up to Vail for some late winter skiing. I have never seen the west so up close (only from the air). I was absolutely awestruck at the endless breathtaking beauty of the mountains and canyons, etc. It was truly a magnificant experience for a flatlander like me.

Of course, I couldn't help think if beauty of such magnitude needed a creator. I took the theistic side and debated with my friend who is a staunch atheist. Of course, in the end, I realized that it is just an incredible feat of a godless nature. In fact, if there was a creator why would He have started people on the other side of the earth where no one could even see all that beauty.

Anyway, I do try to keep an open mind and it is also why I read this forum.

bills217

05-17-2006, 02:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Unbiased source

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL @ religioustolerance.org as an "unbiased source."

"Less openly hateful" would've been more accurate.

bills217

05-17-2006, 02:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Even by the most fundamentalist interpretation possible, the first written records of anything resembling Jesus appeared 5 years after his supposed death.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is pretty quick compared to other historical figures of that time, especially considering Jesus was not a political figure. They didn't have CNN.

The earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written over 400 years after his death, and as far as I know no one has been compelled to register www.alexanderthegreatneverexisted.com. (http://www.alexanderthegreatneverexisted.com.)

vhawk01

05-17-2006, 04:54 AM

You think the amount of evidence and support chronicling the life of Alexander the Great is comparable to that of Christ? Interesting analogy...

miketurner

05-17-2006, 08:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, if there was a creator why would He have started people on the other side of the earth where no one could even see all that beauty.

Anyway, I do try to keep an open mind and it is also why I read this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no beauty on the other side of the earth? That must be why America is so great, we have a monopoly on beauty!

I do believe you try to keep an opened mind, btw... but you're a little short sighted on this "logic". /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

edit: On the subject of “opened mindedness” I just realized you said “that’s why you read this forum.” That’s like me saying I go to church to keep an opened mind. I would say reading this forum would be to reenforce what you already believe, not challenge it. If you want to really keep an opened mind... read this forum and the Bible.

Nielsio

05-17-2006, 10:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Point a fool in the right direction please.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://freedomainradio.com/index_files/listen_in.htm

madnak

05-17-2006, 10:51 AM

That's a pretty silly comparison. There's plenty of record of Alexander from his own time. And if there weren't, his existence wouldn't be in dispute. Alexander was a conqueror and warlord who cut through the Middle East sacking cities and taking over. He left a lot of evidence of his existence.

The question of whether Socrates existed is more valid. The record of Socrates is much more solid than that of Jesus, but at least there are some parallels. I would consider the suggestion that Socrates didn't exist, or was simply a dramatic figure, to be eminently sane. Somehow I imagine that suggestion would be far less controversial in spite of the greater evidence of Socrates.

As for religioustolerance.org, they work very hard to be as objective as possible, and include the viewpoints of even the most rigid fundamentalists in their descriptions. I'd love to hear what you consider to be an unbiased source. Let's compare notes.

Lestat

05-17-2006, 11:08 AM

On the subject of “opened mindedness” I just realized you said “that’s why you read this forum.” That’s like me saying I go to church to keep an opened mind. I would say reading this forum would be to reenforce what you already believe, not challenge it. 

I just meant that I like reading and contemplating other people's views and yes... My own mind has been changed more than once on here. I remember I first thought that exposing children to religion in public school was a terrible idea. Because of intelligent rebuttals to my claims I now think it's a very good idea! So I do think this forum can also change your beliefs if you keep an open mind.

Btw- I didn't mean to say that North America has a monopoly on beauty, but what a waste to put all those majestic canyons and mountains there if your plan is to start people off on the other side of the world with no assurance that these creations will ever be seen?

I also think it's good to challenge your beliefs. When your beliefs withstand a thorough challenge they can only solidify and become stronger. I think some people here argue full well knowing they will never change their beliefs even in the face of logical errors. That's bad.

Indiana

05-17-2006, 01:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
maybe the i-man has a pole and a line and a hook, baited w/ a brown trout, and he is relaxing and trolling.................b

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah I'm a troll with 3400 posts on 2+2, clear and huge poker winnings by any database out there, and a long-standing relationship with many in the poker community (with various WSOP appearances).

Seriously, I just wondered if I was out of touch with my beliefs. I've been reading the Bible a lot and I do believe in Jesus Christ. No shame for me in saying that. However, I do admit that I could be wrong. What separates me from a guy over in the hard religious right is that I believe that its all faith and not necessarily fact. I came to this forum hoping that someone could help me reassess what I believe and show me where I'm wrong in my thinking but all I get is hot air and a lot of nothingness.

I am personally blown away at how the smartest people in America and around the world spend so little time trying to figure out what matters most. Yes, I love math, poker, and science. But those things we know are going to provide only temporary satisfaction in life. I want to know what's going to happen when I die. Screw being happy now, screw temporary discussions. Give me the facts. Bottom line is that smart, poker-playing, cell-phone using, intelligent humans did not come from an accidental big bang or tree bark. And don't derail my thread with molecular biology b.s.

Indy

vhawk01

05-17-2006, 01:31 PM

What matters the most is an interesting way of describing something that has been debated hotly for thousands of years with absolutely no progress. I'm actually glad that most of the smartest people in America spend so little time on this topic. At least we don't waste them, banging their heads into a brick wall.

miketurner

05-17-2006, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Btw- I didn't mean to say that North America has a monopoly on beauty, but what a waste to put all those majestic canyons and mountains there if your plan is to start people off on the other side of the world with no assurance that these creations will ever be seen?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is all hypothetical to you, since you don’t believe there is a God... But are you saying that God couldn’t know that we would get here, or that canyons and mountains have no other purpose other than to look at?

bdypdx

05-17-2006, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
God is not alive. Justice is dead. Sex is mathematics. And no one wishes for a better world for anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why're you telling me that?

I just can't figure out why the OP and others seem to think that the Judaism/Christian myths are better than all of the other myths out there. I mean, the Chinese and Indians also have interesting myths and ancient books and well developed religious beliefs.

So, why Jesus? Or Buddha? Or any other character who lived 2 or 3 thousand years ago? I'm sure that some of them had good insights on the human condition. But still, I don't get why those 2-3 thousand year old insights should trump what we know now.

Consider Jerry Falwell. He's a rich, mean, obese jerk who thinks he knows Jesus. Please, give me a break! If Jesus wandered into the present, he'd walk into Jerry Falwell's place and start flipping over tables. Or maybe Buddha would come along and just say, "Ehhh. Whatever". Who knows what those guys 2-3k years ago would think about today's world?

"God is not alive." - If it exists, it may or may not be alive.

"Justice is dead." - As far as I know, justice is a concept that humans came up with. So, it depends on the humans.

"Sex is mathematics." - Oh yeah! Lotsa probabilities/possibilities...... Will I get pregnant?/Will someone else get pregnant?/Will I get/give AIDS or other STD's?/and the list goes on and on.

"And no one wishes for a better world for anyone." - Speak for yourself, which I guess you did.

madnak

05-17-2006, 05:35 PM

I think he's saying the teleological argument doesn't hold up because it's based on emotion rather than reason, and emotion goes both ways.

bdypdx

05-17-2006, 05:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

...or that canyons and mountains have no other purpose other than to look at?

[/ QUOTE ]

Canyons and mountains exist on planets that humans will never, ever know. They exist for no other reason than that natural processes brought them forth.

Geologic processes form mountains and canyons. No one needs to look at them. They're out there though.

MidGe

05-17-2006, 08:05 PM

Hiya miketurner,

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to really keep an opened mind... read this forum and the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that the bible is the only alternative to this forum. If you really want to keep an open mind, there is probably more to read than you have time for. Maybe just need to stick to the ten, or whatver time you have for, major alternatives. /images/graemlins/smile.gif By the way I see litle reason to put the bible on the top of the ten alternatives, altough I would put it in the top ten for interest.

miketurner

05-17-2006, 08:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hiya miketurner,

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to really keep an opened mind... read this forum and the Bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that the bible is the only alternative to this forum. If you really want to keep an open mind, there is probably more to read than you have time for. Maybe just need to stick to the ten, or whatver time you have for, major alternatives. /images/graemlins/smile.gif By the way I see litle reason to put the bible on the top of the ten alternatives, altough I would put it in the top ten for interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m not sure I follow you MidGe. If the subject is Jesus or Christianity, why wouldn’t the Bible be at the top of your list of reading? It just seems to me that you said everything backwards... this forum is not the only alternative to the Bible. Not even in the top ten.

miketurner

05-17-2006, 08:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

...or that canyons and mountains have no other purpose other than to look at?

[/ QUOTE ]

Canyons and mountains exist on planets that humans will never, ever know. They exist for no other reason than that natural processes brought them forth.

Geologic processes form mountains and canyons. No one needs to look at them. They're out there though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I was just confused by Lestat’s logic. ...That God wouldn’t put mountains & canyons where people “might not” see them, so that leads to the conclusion that He doesn’t exist. I don’t see the relevance of your post, since that wasn’t part of what either of us were saying.

MidGe

05-17-2006, 09:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I’m not sure I follow you MidGe. If the subject is Jesus or Christianity, why wouldn’t the Bible be at the top of your list of reading? It just seems to me that you said everything backwards... this forum is not the only alternative to the Bible. Not even in the top ten.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the subject is Jesus or Xianity, then you are right. But the subject, afaik, is revelation without being specific. Then to be open minded would mean to investigate all religions. Of course some people may define open-mindedness as constrained to lok at Xtianity exclusively. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

So I agree with you as there are many alternative to this forum there are many alternatives to the bible.

A_C_Slater

05-17-2006, 09:45 PM

This thread is too long. Time to end it. The most revealing revealation is.....

"The final truth is.... there is no final truth."

miketurner

05-17-2006, 10:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I’m not sure I follow you MidGe. If the subject is Jesus or Christianity, why wouldn’t the Bible be at the top of your list of reading? It just seems to me that you said everything backwards... this forum is not the only alternative to the Bible. Not even in the top ten.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the subject is Jesus or Xianity, then you are right. But the subject, afaik, is revelation without being specific. Then to be open minded would mean to investigate all religions. Of course some people may define open-mindedness as constrained to lok at Xtianity exclusively. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

So I agree with you as there are many alternative to this forum there are many alternatives to the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you not read the OP? The subject is Christianity...[ QUOTE ]
I am desparate to understand my existence and grow a deeper understanding of Jesus Christ today.

[/ QUOTE ]

Edit: I guess you were isolating your response to my conversation with Lestat. In that case, it was kind of a misunderstanding. There are certainly other alternatives to the Bible. Where you rank them is entirely up to the you, I guess. Knock yourself out.

MidGe

05-17-2006, 11:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The subject is Christianity...

[/ QUOTE ]

My bad... just was going on the title. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Lestat

05-17-2006, 11:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Btw- I didn't mean to say that North America has a monopoly on beauty, but what a waste to put all those majestic canyons and mountains there if your plan is to start people off on the other side of the world with no assurance that these creations will ever be seen?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this is all hypothetical to you, since you don’t believe there is a God... But are you saying that God couldn’t know that we would get here, or that canyons and mountains have no other purpose other than to look at?

[/ QUOTE ]

This kind of ties into my whole problem/disbelief in God. Who's to say what knowledge He had of what would become of His creation? If He's all-knowing, then He knew right from the start that Jesus would suffer a torturous death, right? So did He set up His only Son right from the beginning Or...

Did He give us liberty and free will? In that case, He might not have known what would become of man or that he would make his way to what is now North America. And speaking of North America...

Are you a young earth guy? If not, did God create Pangaea (a supercontinent), and then let the tectonic plates do their thing and shift to form the current 7 continents? Did He have it planned out that way, so that the continents would be in their respective places now? Or do you believe God created the 7 continents as they are now?

These questions are not trivial. They demand answers and should challenge your beliefs (which is what started our little diversion here). If you cannot answers these questions thoroughly, you need to question your beliefs. If you can answer them comfortably, then your beliefs should solidify.

bearly

05-18-2006, 12:29 AM

3400 posts=0
huge e-penis=0
bros to hug and names to drop=0
you can not be out of touch w/ your beliefs, they are what you believe.
you are bothered by noise----the chattering of monkeys---and your solution is to seek more noise
this is not your thread. you have made some marks.
you have shown courage and insight to say straight-out "it's all faith"
the marks f-a-i-t-h- don't require analysis
if in 30 or 40 years you can simply say "what is, is" and that will cover all your concerns here expressed, i will say you have done a pretty darn good job.................b

miketurner

05-18-2006, 07:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
These questions are not trivial. They demand answers...

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Ok, fair enough...

[ QUOTE ]
If He's all-knowing, then He knew right from the start that Jesus would suffer a torturous death, right? So did He set up His only Son right from the beginning Or...

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe (acknowledging belief as not being proof) in the trinity. God and Jesus are part of the same being. So God, Himself, suffered a torturous death for me. That would be an act of agape, not cruelty.

[ QUOTE ]
Did He give us liberty and free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. If God could not know something will happen, and yet still “let” it happen, he wouldn’t be “God” now would he?

[ QUOTE ]
Are you a young earth guy? If not, did God create Pangaea (a supercontinent), and then let the tectonic plates do their thing and shift to form the current 7 continents? Did He have it planned out that way, so that the continents would be in their respective places now? Or do you believe God created the 7 continents as they are now?

[/ QUOTE ]

To be honest, I’ve put very little thought into this. It’s just not important to me. I know this is probably an unsatisfactory answer for you, but I’m just being honest. I have heard that people have added up the ages in the Bible to get a “young earth.” I have not, however, learned and studied the exact ways that scientists get an “old earth.” I would suspect you haven’t either, although I could be wrong. I could not possibly argue against something that I admittedly have little knowledge of. On the other hand, I choose not to put my blind faith in it either. They just have such a poor track record. For example, did you know that the earth is supposedly thousands of years older than it was in the 1980's?

So, in conclusion... I suppose I just don’t care how old the earth is at this time. That may change in the future. The continents sure look like they fit together though.

Lestat

05-18-2006, 09:21 AM

I believe (acknowledging belief as not being proof) in the trinity. God and Jesus are part of the same being. So God, Himself, suffered a torturous death for me. That would be an act of agape, not cruelty. 

As a kid in Catechism, I never did understand the trinity thing. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost/Spirit. I know this isn't religious school, but can you quickly explain who or what the Holy spirit is? And so Jesus wasn't the son of God, but God Himself? God impregnated Mary to give birth to Himself so He could go down in the form of His only son? That is just so complicated...

Yes. If God could not know something will happen, and yet still “let” it happen, he wouldn’t be “God” now would he? 

I don't understand your thinking here. You say "yes" to us having free will, but then seem to contradict yourself. Are you saying God DOES know all, yet still "lets" it happen anyway? Or that He might choose to not "let" it happen (taking away our free will)? Or that He does not know all, but can make anything happen (again, taking away our free will)?

To be honest, I’ve put very little thought into this. It’s just not important to me. 

This is what I meant by they "demand" answers. I already assume that most theists put very little thought into questions such as this. Yet they are important questions, because they present HUGE problems to a religious world view. How can it not be important to reconcile these descrepencies once you acknowledge them?

It is one thing to deny the evolution of life, but are you going to deny geology as well? How can you not wonder if God made the earth as it is today, or if He just made a supercontinent? Did He make individual mountains and seas Himself, or are they the result of tectonic plates shifting under pressure deep beneath the earth's surface? I think even the most ardent theists would acknowledge that volcanoes, plateaus, and such, are caused by dynamic changes underneath the earth, so this begs the question: Why did God create Pangaea in the first place? What was the purpose of putting so much work into the unseen underground workings of this planet so that it could seperate and split into the current continents of today? If this current form of earth is the way God wanted it, why not make it that way right from the start? Of course, this all ties in to:

The whole Tower of Babylon episode (or whatever that place was where everyone's language miraculously changed so they couldn't understand each other). This is important to the supercontinent question, because the bible would have you believe that man speaks different languages NOT because he became separated by seas and mountains, but because man all lived in the same place and God decided he didn't want us to understand one another as a form of punishment.

Anyway, I don't think you have to be a biblical expert or a carbon dating specialist to ask these types of questions and conclude what makes sense to you and what doesn't make sense. But I do think it's important to ask the questions.

RJT

05-18-2006, 10:56 AM

Stat,

The Holy Spirit (HS) is many things. “He” is really underrated in my book, often ignored when Christianity is discussed. But, he plays a big role.

I’d say we can liken (or call) the HS to: wisdom, one’s conscience, Grace (with the capital G). He is many things. When we say the Bible is the Word of God – it is the HS, basically, in literary form that we are talking about.

We can contrast the HS to Mick Jagger’s Lucifer in “Sympathy for the Devil”. Here the Devil is present at all the great historical disasters/crimes such as the Crucifixion, the Russian Revolution, the JFK assassination. Within the Church, the Holy Spirit is present during all the great historical moments and gives us wisdom and strength. He was there at all the Ecumenical Councils when the tough decisions where made for our beliefs and practices.

The HS guides all of us believers (including – especially? - the Pope) and helps us do the right thing(s). He is actually a very (perhaps even the most) important “Person” of the Trinity in/for the Living Church – today’s Church. He keeps it going. He is the reason the Church has lasted and will last. If He didn’t exist the Church would indeed “fade away”.

As a side note: He is the real enemy of those who think Christianity dangerous. Those folk are misguided when they think their fight is with Jesus. Had they been around 2000 years ago, they would be right in choosing Jesus as their enemy. Today, if they want to kill Christianity, they really need to do battle with the HS.

RJT

Lestat

05-18-2006, 11:14 AM

Thanks RJT.

So it sounds like you're saying the Holy Spirit is meant to guide us? Is the HS what we refer to in the prayer that asks, "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"?

Thanks again, for taking the time to make such a thorough response.

RJT

05-18-2006, 11:40 AM

Stat,

I would say yes, we are praying to the 3rd Person in One God, the HS, when we ask God to "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil"? Good point.

RJT

miketurner

05-18-2006, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but can you quickly explain who or what the Holy spirit is?

[/ QUOTE ]

already covered.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying God DOES know all, yet still "lets" it happen anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. That is my current understanding. I do, however, think God muses us and gives us the choice to “listen” or not. I am still growing though, so...

[ QUOTE ]
Yet they are important questions, because they present HUGE problems to a religious world view. How can it not be important to reconcile these descrepencies once you acknowledge them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that is where we disagree. I don’t think it’s a problem at all. Please expand on this.

[ QUOTE ]
It is one thing to deny the evolution of life, but are you going to deny geology as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I currently believe in geology. However, I kinda take it with a grain of salt. It wouldn’t surprise me if they came to a different conclusion tomorrow ( or a ‘partial’ different conclusion). Note that I’m not expecting it or anything, hence my current belief that it is likely correct.

[ QUOTE ]
How can you not wonder if God made the earth as it is today, or if He just made a supercontinent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, man... it’s just not important to me. Sure, it may be a fleeting thought... especially since we are discussing it. If you are pinning me down to an answer, I would say “it appears from what I’ve been told and seen, that the earth most likely was created with 1 large continent.”

[ QUOTE ]
Why did God create Pangaea in the first place? What was the purpose of putting so much work into the unseen underground workings of this planet so that it could seperate and split into the current continents of today? If this current form of earth is the way God wanted it, why not make it that way right from the start?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of coarse I can only speculate a hypothetical here... Perhaps God wanted to create a “living planet” so to speak. The same reason you and I were not born as we exist today. We grew into our current existence and we will continue to change every minute until we no longer exist. It is conceivable to me that the earth was created the same way... it will change until it no longer exist. Noone said that God only wanted a earth in it’s “current form.”

sweetjazz

05-19-2006, 01:38 AM

That many people would rather spend their time arguing one way or the other about metaphysical questions about which they have very little insight than learn how to correctly answer questions with objectively known answers (e.g. math problems).

CharlieDontSurf

05-22-2006, 01:18 AM

on a side note..when noah filled up his ark....did he get two of every insect two?
what about snakes..black mambas etc?

siegfriedandroy

05-22-2006, 07:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was absolutely awestruck at the endless breathtaking beauty of the mountains and canyons, etc. It was truly a magnificant experience for a flatlander like me.

Of course, I couldn't help think if beauty of such magnitude needed a creator. I took the theistic side and debated with my friend who is a staunch atheist. Of course, in the end, I realized that it is just an incredible feat of a godless nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh, man, Lestat...you were getting so close until your last sentence and 'realization'!!

Lestat

05-22-2006, 08:48 PM

Ahhh, man, Lestat...you were getting so close until your last sentence and 'realization'!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks sieg. The view really did floor me and gave me pause. At least I pondered the possibility of a creator in earnest. And I really don't mean this as a dig, but I'm genuinely curious...

Have you ever seriously pondered the possibility that there is no God? I mean REALLY thought about it? I hope you'll say that you have. I can respect someone who has, yet still believes, whereas I cannot when someone believes mainly out of fear for the alternative.

IronUnkind

05-22-2006, 10:33 PM

Most people think they are way smarter than they actually are.

IronUnkind

05-22-2006, 10:36 PM

It is not really that controversial. Perhaps you think it should be, but for the bulk of historians, his existence is taken for granted. The naysayers are usually screaming from the academic sidelines.

madnak

05-22-2006, 10:58 PM

I don't think that's true. You'll need to back it up. I was under the impression that the view of Christ as a composite of various messiah-figures is gaining popularity among historians. It's definitely not disputed that very little record exists of his life.

IronUnkind

05-23-2006, 05:30 AM

I'll leave it to Graham Stanton, who writes:

Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.

Now whether you regard Stanton, or Bultmann, or even Will Durant as credible sources is entirely up to you.

madnak

05-23-2006, 03:54 PM

Uh... what? None of these people are even historians. Durant was a philosopher and Bultmann was a theologian. Both were about as unbiased as the pope, and both were dead before the controversy gained its current momentum.

I've never heard of Graham Stanton before, but googling indicates that he's a New Testament scholar and Christian author. Not a valid historian in my opinion, and certainly not objective. I looked into the quote you posted to find the source. I only managed to find 9 relevant results, most of which were links on Christian forums to this (http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm) article by a Christian blogger and all-around hack. Coincidentally, he also mentions Bultmann and Durant. Maybe someone isn't doing his own research?

Thankfully I also found this (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html) site, equally biased (christian-thinktank.com), which provides further quotes from Graham. In the book where your quote is found, Graham acknowledges that doubt has been cast on the existence of Jesus since the 17th century, and that the controversy is a threat to be taken seriously. Your cherry-picked quote seems a bit deceptive even when taken in the full context in which the (Christian apologist) author wrote it.

Keep in mind - your position isn't that most historians think Jesus existed. Your position is that there is no controversy regarding the subject. Tossing out Christian shills isn't helping your case, and I can meet each one of them with a similarly partisan skeptic. I'll toss in the religioustolerance laundry list - G.A. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Bruno Bauer, John M. Robertson, Michael Martin, and Earl Doherty. Now, if you want to pull out some real historians we can get serious, but I think it's becoming clearer and clearer that there is a controversy.

IronUnkind

05-25-2006, 06:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Uh... what? None of these people are even historians. Durant was a philosopher and Bultmann was a theologian. Both were about as unbiased as the pope, and both were dead before the controversy gained its current momentum.

[/ QUOTE ]

This so-called momentum has been generated almost exclusively by non-professionals. Within the walls of academia, the "Jesus Myth" movement is mostly a sideshow (as it has always been). Anyhow, the duty of a scholar is not to respond to trends, but rather to the evidence. Since the counterevidence to Jesus's existence is nil, the timing of these men's deaths is irrelevant.

To say that Bultmann or Durant are "about as unbiased as the pope," is tantamount to an admission of cluelessness. Bultmann was no apologist. On the contrary, he was widely criticized for his skepticism regarding the historicity of the gospels. And Will Durant WAS an historian in addition to being a philosopher. Perhaps your "real historians" are also fond of glaring factual errors.

[ QUOTE ]
I've never heard of Graham Stanton before, but googling indicates that he's a New Testament scholar and Christian author. Not a valid historian in my opinion, and certainly not objective. I looked into the quote you posted to find the source. I only managed to find 9 relevant results, most of which were links on Christian forums to this article by a Christian blogger and all-around hack. Coincidentally, he also mentions Bultmann and Durant. Maybe someone isn't doing his own research?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've never heard of Graham Stanton because you are way out of your depth with respect to this issue, and you are shooting from the hip. Even your detective work is clumsy; I've never read the blog which you link, but the appearance of similar references should not be surprising given the fact that this is a marginal issue.

[ QUOTE ]
Thankfully I also found this site, equally biased (christian-thinktank.com), which provides further quotes from Graham. In the book where your quote is found, Graham acknowledges that doubt has been cast on the existence of Jesus since the 17th century, and that the controversy is a threat to be taken seriously. Your cherry-picked quote seems a bit deceptive even when taken in the full context in which the (Christian apologist) author wrote it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a credit shy of graduation, as it seems you neglected to take Reading Comprehension 101. The quote which I "cherry-picked" was crystal clear. You've now accused me of plagiarism and mendacity. Yet it is you who puts words in Stanton's mouth. You write:

[ QUOTE ]
Graham acknowledges that doubt has been cast on the existence of Jesus since the 17th century, and that the controversy is a threat to be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Graham actually writes:

[ QUOTE ]
This intriguing theory rests on several pillars, all of which are shaky. Nonetheless it is worth taking it seriously, for it raises important issues for the student of the gospels.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue, in other words, is not worth taking seriously because it provides a legitimate threat but because it produces interesting questions. There is a difference.

He does concede that "the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet." So too the moon landing.

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind - your position isn't that most historians think Jesus existed. Your position is that there is no controversy regarding the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me be clear about my position, lest I should fall victim to your creative paraphrasing. There is obviously controversy regarding the subject, just as there is a controversy about human origins. But Jesus-Myth proponents are to be taken only slightly more seriously than creationists. My position, in fact, IS that most historians (read: nearly all) think Jesus existed.

[ QUOTE ]
Tossing out Christian shills isn't helping your case, and I can meet each one of them with a similarly partisan skeptic....Now, if you want to pull out some real historians we can get serious, but I think it's becoming clearer and clearer that there is a controversy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only thing that is becoming clearer is your ignorance. You've already demonstrated that you don't understand what a "real historian" is. Here's a hint: when someone holds a position like Professor of New Testament Studies at a secular university, he is not a "Christian shill." He is an expert.

miketurner

05-25-2006, 08:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Both were about as unbiased as the pope...

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
...and certainly not objective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m not going to get into the name calling and stuff as Iron did... but wouldn’t an atheist be just as biased and unobjective as a theist?
A self proclaimed agnostic might come from a centered point of view, but someone already leaning to either side would already know what he was “looking for,” and he would find it.
We believe who we want to believe. Most of the time, it has nothing to do with “credibility” when it comes to this subject.

madnak

05-25-2006, 03:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Let me be clear about my position, lest I should fall victim to your creative paraphrasing. There is obviously controversy regarding the subject, just as there is a controversy about human origins. But Jesus-Myth proponents are to be taken only slightly more seriously than creationists. My position, in fact, IS that most historians (read: nearly all) think Jesus existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. I need to learn how to read an entire post before I start responding. I spent the last hour writing a very long response trying to establish that the issue is controversial, and now you've gone and conceded the point. You said that the question of whether Jesus existed is "not really that controversial." I guess that's vague enough that it doesn't represent a concrete position in the first place, so it's hard to accuse you of backpedaling.

I'll try another approach. With your comparison are you suggesting creationism is "not really that controversial?" Because it strikes me as one of the most contentious issues in contemporary thought.

madnak

05-25-2006, 03:50 PM

Of course most atheists are unbiased. The fact remains that almost the entire record of the existence of Jesus is contained in Christian texts which are internally contradictory and considered mythological even by many Christians. My original point in this thread is that there exists about as much evidence for the existence of Gautama Buddha as for Jesus Christ. The OP claimed otherwise and had no justification for doing so.

My issue of contention with Iron is whether there is a controversy (or much of one). I acknowledge that people on both sides of the issue are biased, but the relevant bias is that of the scholars trying to sweep the entire issue under the rug as if it doesn't exist.

IronUnkind

05-25-2006, 05:45 PM

It might be hotly debated by Southern Baptists and idiot school boards. For scientists, creationism is just considered bad science, and it is mostly derided or ignored. The Jesus-Myth is similarly dismissed by scholars.

madnak

05-25-2006, 09:19 PM

Ah, so it comes down to an appeal to authority. I'm not sure how much time is worth wasting on it, then. It's untrue regardless, and I'd wager that scholars are actually over-represented among the population who believe in the "Jesus-Myth." There are plenty of specific cases of scholars who have actually published works on the subject (G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty), other prominent thinkers who question the existence of Jesus (Bertrand Russell and Thomas Paine), and even entire scholarly movements related to the question (such as in Russia).

IronUnkind

05-25-2006, 10:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, so it comes down to an appeal to authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. The people who are most acquainted with the evidence are almost universally in favor of the idea that Jesus walked the earth. It is perfectly reasonable to lend a greater weight to their opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
It's untrue regardless...

[/ QUOTE ]

What's untrue?

[ QUOTE ]
...and I'd wager that scholars are actually over-represented among the population who believe in the "Jesus-Myth."

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true, then it would be a misleading statistic. "Scholars" might also be overrepresented among Holocaust deniers.

Anyhow, "scholar" is a pretty nebulous term, which you think applies equally to Bultmann and Earl Doherty.

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of specific cases of scholars who have actually published works on the subject (G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty), other prominent thinkers who question the existence of Jesus (Bertrand Russell and Thomas Paine), and even entire scholarly movements related to the question (such as in Russia).

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "plenty" you mean "about a dozen" and by "scholar" you mean "popular writers working outside their field of expertise," then I completely agree.

madnak

05-25-2006, 10:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. The people who are most acquainted with the evidence are almost universally in favor of the idea that Jesus walked the earth. It is perfectly reasonable to lend a greater weight to their opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, by "evidence" you mean the New Testament? Last I checked, experts on fairy tales didn't define history. And theologians aren't a group I will ever take seriously. Someone who's interested in the actual impact of religion will generally study it from a psychological, sociological, or anthropological perspective. Even atheist theologians are at best scholars of art. Generally you have to be a little tweaked to devote your life to the study of God.

In my experience most atheist historians, far from taking Jesus for granted, have no position either way on the issue. They don't consider it relevant whether Jesus existed. The influence of Christianity is what it is, regardless of the specifics of the actual person of Jesus.

You can try to justify an appeal to authority all you like. The fact is it doesn't qualify as reason. I'm not getting into an argument about whether popular opinion is a valid basis for an inductive argument. It's almost always a red herring. Suffice it to say the "experts" have been wrong on numerous occasions, in fact they've been wrong probably more often than they've been right over the course of history. The idea that now they're suddenly correct, or that we should stop considering alternative viewpoints, is nothing more than hubris.

IronUnkind

05-26-2006, 03:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience most atheist historians, far from taking Jesus for granted, have no position either way on the issue. They don't consider it relevant whether Jesus existed. The influence of Christianity is what it is, regardless of the specifics of the actual person of Jesus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based upon your previous responses, I'd venture to say that your experience is more limited than mine. No matter. The relevance of Jesus's existence is an entirely seperate question.

[ QUOTE ]
Suffice it to say the "experts" have been wrong on numerous occasions, in fact they've been wrong probably more often than they've been right over the course of history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then. Perhaps we should be paying more attention to amateurs and idiots.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that now they're suddenly correct, or that we should stop considering alternative viewpoints, is nothing more than hubris.

[/ QUOTE ]

The alternative viewpoints have been considered and summarily rejected. Do you also mock the hubris of university biology professors who refuse to consider the alternative viewpoints regarding human origins? Shall we make the DON'T PASS bet on evolution as well because "the experts are usually wrong?"

madnak

05-26-2006, 04:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Based upon your previous responses, I'd venture to say that your experience is more limited than mine. No matter. The relevance of Jesus's existence is an entirely seperate question.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't. You're trying to include neutral parties in your "camp." But the fact many atheist historians don't put forth the view that Jesus never existed isn't necessarily because they believe he did. They may have no opinion whatsoever on the issue.

[ QUOTE ]
Well then. Perhaps we should be paying more attention to amateurs and idiots.

[/ QUOTE ]

We should dismiss no one out of hand. Some of the greatest geniuses in history have superficially seemed crazy or foolish. And we shouldn't label someone "amateur" or "idiot" until after we've evaluated their ideas. It's those ideas that determine whether such labels are valid in the first place.

[ QUOTE ]
The alternative viewpoints have been considered and summarily rejected. Do you also mock the hubris of university biology professors who refuse to consider the alternative viewpoints regarding human origins? Shall we make the DON'T PASS bet on evolution as well because "the experts are usually wrong?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hundreds of different biology professors have refuted creationism in dozens of different ways. I know from personal experience that some biology professors are very active in their stance against creationism. When an idea has no merit, it's not hard to find experts to refute it. But the historians aren't refuting - they're remaining silent about the issue.

It hasn't been rejected, it's been ignored. See my comment above about questions of relevance. And the spectrum of beliefs about the historicity of Jesus is very broad. The idea that Jesus never existed in any form is only one end of that spectrum. That's part of why it's a minority belief. Trying to bring such a broad spectrum into black-and-white terms is disingenuous. While relatively few scholars accept the idea that Jesus never existed, relatively few are opposed to it. And the idea that Jesus didn't exist as he was described in the bible is almost universally accepted among those who don't have delusions about whether he was divine. And even many who do.

IronUnkind

05-26-2006, 08:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
No, it isn't. You're trying to include neutral parties in your "camp." But the fact many atheist historians don't put forth the view that Jesus never existed isn't necessarily because they believe he did. They may have no opinion whatsoever on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you've dreamed up a schism based upon silence and indifference? Earlier you spoke of an intellectual "movement." I suppose you were referring to the movement of shrugging shoulders.

[ QUOTE ]
We should dismiss no one out of hand. Some of the greatest geniuses in history have superficially seemed crazy or foolish. And we shouldn't label someone "amateur" or "idiot" until after we've evaluated their ideas. It's those ideas that determine whether such labels are valid in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about theologians? Shall we evaluate their ideas or dismiss them out of hand, like so:

[ QUOTE ]
And theologians aren't a group I will ever take seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
But the historians aren't refuting - they're remaining silent about the issue....While relatively few scholars accept the idea that Jesus never existed, relatively few are opposed to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. Maybe not. It sure would help your case if the ones who are open to this idea would speak the hell up.

[ QUOTE ]
And the spectrum of beliefs about the historicity of Jesus is very broad...Trying to bring such a broad spectrum into black-and-white terms is disingenuous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then quit doing it. I never said anything about scholars' beliefs in things about Jesus. I was disputing your suggestion that there is a controversy regarding Jesus's very existence. Among the scholarly literature, this notion is barely a blip on the radar screen.

IronUnkind

05-26-2006, 08:44 AM

Mad:

How am I to reconcile these two statements?

[ QUOTE ]
Of course most atheists are unbiased.

[/ QUOTE ]

AND

[ QUOTE ]
I acknowledge that people on both sides of the issue are biased, but the relevant bias is that of the scholars trying to sweep the entire issue under the rug as if it doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only Earl Doherty could break into the cabal of academia and undo this conspiracy with his dispassionate scholarship.

madnak

05-26-2006, 11:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So you've dreamed up a schism based upon silence and indifference? Earlier you spoke of an intellectual "movement." I suppose you were referring to the movement of shrugging shoulders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about any kind of schism. I'm talking about controversy, not polarization. You're the one trying to make this a black-and-white issue.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We should dismiss no one out of hand. Some of the greatest geniuses in history have superficially seemed crazy or foolish. And we shouldn't label someone "amateur" or "idiot" until after we've evaluated their ideas. It's those ideas that determine whether such labels are valid in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about theologians? Shall we evaluate their ideas or dismiss them out of hand, like so:

[ QUOTE ]
And theologians aren't a group I will ever take seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

We should evaluate the ideas of theologians independently. We should do the same with bums on the street - but that doesn't give them much authority as a group. Neither group works for a living and both are subject to mental illness - it's just that theologians are a little bit worse.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe. Maybe not. It sure would help your case if the ones who are open to this idea would speak the hell up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say "open to," I said "not opposed to." You aren't paying attention. If a biologist were to proclaim a belief in creationism, he'd lose all credibility and respect from his peers. But a scholar who believes Jesus never existed is nothing worse than eccentric according to most of his colleagues. The controversy is fueled by fundamentalists and those with religious agendas. If it weren't for them, you'd probably be right about the lack of controversy - and I'd say the existence of Jesus is "disputed" rather than "controversial."

But we've already covered this issue. Your version of "controversy" is highly restricted and only applies to internal debates among theologians, and certainly not discussions on the Internet. Everyone knows no real discourse happens there.

madnak

05-26-2006, 11:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Mad:

How am I to reconcile these two statements?

[ QUOTE ]
Of course most atheists are unbiased.

[/ QUOTE ]

AND

[ QUOTE ]
I acknowledge that people on both sides of the issue are biased, but the relevant bias is that of the scholars trying to sweep the entire issue under the rug as if it doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only Earl Doherty could break into the cabal of academia and undo this conspiracy with his dispassionate scholarship.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure Earl Doherty is smart enough to identify a typo, particularly when the context is crystal-clear. He's got nothing to worry about.

miketurner

05-26-2006, 03:03 PM

While I still disagree with the tactic of insulting each other, this was quite clever...
[ QUOTE ]
Earlier you spoke of an intellectual "movement." I suppose you were referring to the movement of shrugging shoulders.

[/ QUOTE ] /images/graemlins/grin.gif

IronUnkind

05-26-2006, 06:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not talking about any kind of schism. I'm talking about controversy, not polarization.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point stands. Silent people are not engaged in any sort of controversy.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say "open to," I said "not opposed to." You aren't paying attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I said that I'm not opposed to seeing X-Men tonight, then would it be reasonable to assume that I'm also open to seeing it?

IronUnkind

05-26-2006, 06:15 PM

Contradicting oneself is not typically considered a typographical error. Which of your two statements did you mistype?

IronUnkind

05-26-2006, 06:28 PM

I don't mean to be nasty, and it probably undermines my argument that I come off that way. I'm just frustrated by this whole Christ-Myth business, which is tendentious nonsense masquerading as scholarship.

I didn't feel quite so bad that the claws came out after my integrity had been called into question.

sedg

05-26-2006, 10:43 PM

Indy

Try this link: http://www.cuttingedge.org/salvation.html

When the Holy Spirit/Jesus enters you, you will not second guess your religious position.....its very real.

madnak

05-26-2006, 11:12 PM

There's nothing left but semantics. I don't think the whole world needs to be involved for something to be considered controversial. And I think beliefs and movies are very different things.

madnak

05-26-2006, 11:12 PM

The first one. I meant to say, "of course atheists are biased."

MidGe

05-26-2006, 11:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Indy

Try this link: http://www.cuttingedge.org/salvation.html

When the Holy Spirit/Jesus enters you, you will not second guess your religious position.....its very real.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that link passes the test as to whether it is a cult or not. Definitely cultish with all its negative connotations.

Cyrus

05-27-2006, 10:13 AM

The original, of course.

link (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Board=&Number=2847634&page= 15&view=&sb=5&o=14&fpart=)

lautzutao

05-31-2006, 04:25 PM

That you aren't going to find your answers on a forum.

MatthewRyan

05-31-2006, 05:21 PM

Its really ironic that the thread titled "What's the most revealing revelation from this forum?" ends up with the never ending Jesus/Christianity debate that goes on here every other post....

ChrisV

06-02-2006, 03:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I want to know what's going to happen when I die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think back to before you were born.

Alternatively, think about what it felt like being in your deep sleep cycle last night.

It's going to be a lot like that.

ChrisV

06-02-2006, 04:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Give me the facts. Bottom line is that smart, poker-playing, cell-phone using, intelligent humans did not come from an accidental big bang or tree bark.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

The argument from incredulity does not have a distinguished history, having been used to argue against just about every scientific discovery ever. Most obviously and famously, it was used to argue for geocentricity. Also that ships couldn't be made of metal because they'd sink and that airplanes couldn't fly because they were too heavy. Even Einstein used it once.

But as long as we're using arguments from incredulity, what about the Christian story? I can't put it any better than it's put in the 300 proofs of God's existence (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm):

[ QUOTE ]
335. ARGUMENT FROM WHAT MAKES SENSE
(1) Doesn't it just make more sense that an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good deity created the world out of nothingness, from magic, essentially, and then punished us for eating a piece of fruit, and then incarnated himself in human flesh and came down to shed his own blood so he could break his own rules, and then went through hell on a temporary basis and then went back into the sky and promised to come back and take everyone who believed in him to this heaven no one has ever seen?
(2) Well, doesn't it?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Edit: I'm not trying to start another religious flamewar. I'm just pointing out that it is inconsistent of the OP to be incredulous of the human evolution narrative and yet subscribe to the far more incredible Christian story.