Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah I don't buy the Noah's Ark story either and I think it is a parable also. But,,,,,BUT.........I can't say for sure at this point whether the story of Christ is myth or parable or just a dang good story of a dang good man that once lived. My thing is why can't we experience God in our lifetime, why the special people of 2000 years ago? I want proof, I want it now and I won't accept any less. That's not too much to ask imo.
I agree Ilene. If God or Jesus are omnipotent, then it should be no problem at all for them to manifest infront of me. Despite my repeated requests, my calls have not yet been returned.........
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayDick
And I think the reason people in desperate circumstances "experience" God is because they want to.
Dont know if I could have said it better myself.
Humans are a pattern seeking animal, it's just a part of our evolution. We look for shapes of animals in the clouds, some of us notice certain number patterns, pictures of jesus on our morning toast........ if you want to find something bad enough, eventualy, you will, regardless if it is there to find or not.
What evidence? The Biblical record of it? That's not evidence, it's a story.
Not all writings are the same, though. Would you say that the writings about Julius Caesar's assassination were "not evidence, just a story"? The people who wrote the Gospels clearly believed the events to have happened, and were mostly no more than one or two people removed from direct witnesses to the events (I'd go a little further and say that John's Gospel and much of Mark's probably were first-hand accounts, but even if not, they were close enough to the sources to be credible). I find it very difficult to believe that these stories arose from a group that were in a position to know whether Jesus was resurrected or not, but yet were totally fabricated. Either the authors were lying, they were totally mistaken, or they were telling the truth. That they were telling the truth is the only idea that makes any kind of sense to me.
Quote:
I don't know exactly what that would entail but I think a visitation would be in order from SOMEONE for me to believe any of it at this point. Or some major miracle that I could witness that would be enough for me to believe. If God is all-knowing, then he knows what it would take for me to believe.
The problem is that if you had 100% undeniable proof...then you wouldn't believe. You'd know. So what you're saying is that you don't want to believe God exist, you want to KNOW he does. I can understand that. I'd like to know He exists also, but I don't. But I do find it far more rational to believe God exists than to believe He doesn't, and far more rational to believe Jesus was resurrected than to believe He wasn't. It would be quite cool to go back in time and see the physically resurrected Jesus just like the apostles did, to know for certain. But since I'm convinced that they did see Him, then I'm convinced that Jesus was resurrected. And I can't refuse to believe in something of which I'm convinced.
Quote:
I don't think I can be any clearer than that. I need proof, plain and simple. And yes it needs to be 100%, anything less than that is not proof, it's speculation.
I disagree. I wouldn't call "a preponderance of the evidence" to be equal to speculation. I know I keep bringing up Caesar's assassination, but here I go again. Do we have 100% proof that Caesar was assassinated? All we have are ancient texts saying he was. Is that proof? No, but it's more than enough to be convincing. That Caesar was assassinated isn't "speculation". It's what all of the evidence says happened, and what no evidence says didn't. Same with Jesus and the Resurrection. All evidence says it happened. None says it didn't.
Quote:
It's not unreasonable at all, in fact I think it's a pretty simple request. One that is definitely within God's ability to provide.
But then you're taking "belief" out of the matter. Saying that you refuse to believe unless it's 100% proven suggests to me that you don't want to believe at all. You want to know. You're saying that if you were 95% convinced, you wouldn't believe it to be true. That describes an active resistance to belief.
If you truly want to believe, then believe. If you're refusing to believe, but only want to know for certain, then I think you may need to re-examine what you really want from God.
I'd like to know for certain, too. But belief is more than enough for me.
Eyewitness testimony isn't the only kind of evidence there is. None of the accounts of Julius Caesar's assassination were written by eyewitnesses, but that doesn't mean we'd say there was "no evidence" that Julius Caesar was assassinated. In fact, the account of Caesar's assassination that is considered most accurate is that of the historian Suetonius, which was written around 120 AD, over 160 years after the assassination itself. Plutarch's account was from the late 1st century, over a century after the assassination. Most of what we know about Alexander the Great comes from historians writing four centuries after the fact. The Gospels at least were all composed in the same century of the events they describe. When they were compiled is hardly relevant to whether they are accurate or not.
Sure.
But Julius Caesar's assassination is physically possible.
Re-animating a corpse, walking on water, and reanimating one's self is not.
Quote:
So, no, we don't say that non-eyewitness testimony for ancient events isn't evidence. Most of the testimony we have for ancient events comes from people who didn't personally witness them.
Okay, but by your definition, all of Grimm's fairy tales have "evidence" for their truth.
You are asking a question that pertains to the side of Eve.
Eve represents the physical side of our being while Adam is the spiritual side in us.
Now, how does your question relate?
Well, without one or the other, we couldn't be who we are: individual entities.
So, God crated us to be living souls made up of both the spiritual side and the physical side of us.
Not only did He created us so, He also gave us a place to exercise those rights.
What rights?
Well, being physical, we have all rights to everything physical our hearts desire.
Basically, termed "Lusts" because they are the desires of the flesh.
God knew this so He gave us the spiritual consciousness to help deter some of those lusts that could eventually destroy us.
That is the greatest gift to mankind, the ability to choose as gods of our own desires.
The down side is that if we don't get an education into the things of God to aid and comfort us in our times of trials and tribulations of this life, we become wards of this world and with dire consequences.
Yes, one can have no belief in God and still be able to live a just life, being that one does have some strong moral standards to live by and treat his neighbor as one would like to be treated.
But, let me tell you, as one who has known and had good knowledge of God all my life, life has been a pleasant journey, with full benefits of the spiritual side of me.
Peace of mind, in total surrender in placing my life in Gods hands, has given me a perspective of life that is all positive in spite the many pit-falls.
So, if one can bring the Eve, the physical part of us under good management and not allow it to go into an abusive state, destroying us, we have God to thank, for it is His spirit in us that is our conscience that guides us.
It is our choice, to what degree of place, in our lives we ought to give God.
A well balanced life is understanding both sides and learning via life's experience to choose the best route to take in life.
I have chosen mine and I tell you I am very pleased.
Blessings, AJ
Is any of this NOT received wisdom with absolutely no empirical study involved for its deduction?
But Julius Caesar's assassination is physically possible.
Re-animating a corpse, walking on water, and reanimating one's self is not.
I understand this but it's starting out from a place where naturalism, no supernatural exists, is default. That might make sense in a way, but much of ancient history does not assume naturalism and assuming naturalism isn't universally going to be agreed to as right. Even an agnostic doesn't, by definition, have to assume naturalism.
It might sound sensible to do so, but with a bit of thought it's easy to imagine a naturalistic event being less historically plausible than a supernatural one. Like Marcus Garvey and Grace Coolidge having a torrid affair. It might be physically possible, but historically ridiculous. Many historical tales of miracles, including miracles I don't believe, are historically more likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayDick
Okay, but by your definition, all of Grimm's fairy tales have "evidence" for their truth.
Grimm's Fairytales don't, I don't think, give a specific period that occurred within 70 years of their writing. At least someone from the Gospel age was likely to presumably alive when Mark or Matthew were written.
Any theory cogitated must have a complete plot, from start to finish IMO.
Four things:
1. To start is the introduction. (Our arrival)
2. To address the condition of our state of being in relationship to the start. (Addressing the fall)
3. The consequences of number two above. (Judgment)
4. The price to pay. (Consequences of the guilty verdict in number 3 above.
Now, having given those terms, the story in the bible reflects those four things consistently.
Even in your own life.
1. You are born (introduction)
2. Your alienation from the spiritual world into a physical world.(Fall)
3. Life's consequences due to choices made as a result of the physical existence(Judgment)
4. Penalty. Penalty of this existence is death. (Price)
These are repeated continuously with every soul.
So, what is the hope of anything different? (THE)
The hope is in the spiritual.
Because we were born in the physical, we are a soul with the potential for eternal existence as to who we are, and not just a drop in the ocean.
That potential exists as a reality in the present, can be gained in the present or at death, being that the price paid has already been taken care of by the Creator Himself as Jesus.
The choice is ours.
Blessings, AJ
i dont remember being introduced at birth. I remember being black-mailed to eat my oatmeal at my preschool. that is most certainly how i remember my story starting.
But Julius Caesar's assassination is physically possible.
Re-animating a corpse, walking on water, and reanimating one's self is not.
Then atheists should let that be their argument. They should say "I don't believe in the resurrection because I believe resurrection is impossible" rather than pretending it has anything to do with discrepancies or when the Gospels were written. The only problem is that while they can easily convince themselves of the "not possible" argument, it's not going to work on anyone who isn't a fellow atheist.
Quote:
Okay, but by your definition, all of Grimm's fairy tales have "evidence" for their truth.
No, since it's blatantly obvious that they were intended to be works of fiction, not events that the Brothers Grimm were claiming actually happened. Not all types of writing are the same.
By the way, this subject is being debated in the "Why the resurrection of Jesus is impossible" thread (maybe you're already there, I forget), so if you want to keep debating this, let's do so there. I won't debate this subject here any longer.
I understand this but it's starting out from a place where naturalism, no supernatural exists, is default. That might make sense in a way, but much of ancient history does not assume naturalism and assuming naturalism isn't universally going to be agreed to as right. Even an agnostic doesn't, by definition, have to assume naturalism.
It might sound sensible to do so, but with a bit of thought it's easy to imagine a naturalistic event being less historically plausible than a supernatural one. Like Marcus Garvey and Grace Coolidge having a torrid affair. It might be physically possible, but historically ridiculous. Many historical tales of miracles, including miracles I don't believe, are historically more likely.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. "Supernatural" by definition, can't exist in nature. Period.
Quote:
Grimm's Fairytales don't, I don't think, give a specific period that occurred within 70 years of their writing. At least someone from the Gospel age was likely to presumably alive when Mark or Matthew were written.
You're missing the point. Anyone can write something down. The act of writing something down doesn't make the written word true.
"President Hoover flew from the Empire State Building to the Chrysler building on the back of a chihuahua in 1944." There, I just stated something that happened within the last 70 years. Does that now make it true?
And no, this is not more ridiculous than Christ raising himself from the dead after he rotted for 3 days.
I can't beleive we still have to convince you people of this stuff.
Then atheists should let that be their argument. They should say "I don't believe in the resurrection because I believe resurrection is impossible" rather than pretending it has anything to do with discrepancies or when the Gospels were written. The only problem is that while they can easily convince themselves of the "not possible" argument, it's not going to work on anyone who isn't a fellow atheist.
Atheists claim both. Resurrection is impossible because it's impossible, and also the gospels contradict each other in material ways. Both statements are true.
And you are right, for the most part, we fail to convince the deluded that their delusions are untrue. That's why they're called "deluded." Logic doesn't work on crazy people.
Quote:
No, since it's blatantly obvious that they were intended to be works of fiction, not events that the Brothers Grimm were claiming actually happened. Not all types of writing are the same.
Oh, how silly of me! So long as the author intends the writings to be true, we should swallow it wholesale! Have I got a reading list for you....
Quote:
By the way, this subject is being debated in the "Why the resurrection of Jesus is impossible" thread (maybe you're already there, I forget), so if you want to keep debating this, let's do so there. I won't debate this subject here any longer.
Fine. You don't sound particularly bright, so I doubt I will rejoin you wherever you go.
This makes absolutely no sense at all. "Supernatural" by definition, can't exist in nature. Period.
Your assuming what is natural is the only thing that can exist. This is not an assumption most people share and is not an assumption most anyone had until two or three centuries ago.
We can attest that Joan of Arc claimed angelic visions. As it's attested I think it could be historically valid to claim it happened in some sense. Or at least that it could because we are uncertain. We can theorize she had temporal lobe epilepsy. That would give a naturalistic explanation, but if there is no evidence to support it it's just a naturalistic hypothesis. It could even be argued to not be historically valid. Or at least not historically valid unless you can find some evidence of it in her skeleton or DNA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayDick
You're missing the point. Anyone can write something down. The act of writing something down doesn't make the written word true.
If that's your point it's one of the weakest ones I've ever heard. Because no one is claiming that everything written down is true. They're saying that having several people, within a lifetime of the event, say the event actually happened does mean something. You need to believe in several people making up an event, and calling it history, even though there were living people able to contradict it as an actual event. This is rather different than just any old thing being written or Grimm's fairy-tales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayDick
"President Hoover flew from the Empire State Building to the Chrysler building on the back of a chihuahua in 1944." There, I just stated something that happened within the last 70 years. Does that now make it true?
You didn't invent President Hoover, the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, or chihuahas. They all exist. However we can look in the record and see the combination of them in this way is false.
Also there's this weird atheist notion that anything you think up one Sunday evening is equivalent to what many people believed, wrote, lived, and died for. It doesn't work that way. You may have a great distrust in people, but not everyone will or should. (And I don't entirely understand how the atheist distrust in people even works as, by definition, atheists only have humans as sources of information. There is no non-human intelligence to tell you anything. I think what you say is the scientific method is so wonderful it eliminates all human biases of perception, which is bordering on a faith) So anyway why would various first century people invent a guy, living within a lifetime, whose story could be contradicted as easily as your Hoover story? Why would they devote their life to that when doing so generally put them in a worse economic and social position? I'm not saying a reason is impossible, but I get the sense you haven't even thought of the matter much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayDick
And no, this is not more ridiculous than Christ raising himself from the dead after he rotted for 3 days.
I can't believe we still have to convince you people of this stuff.
It's sometimes hard for me to believe there are still atheists so blinkered they think this kind of thing must impress anyone. An argument from personal incredulity isn't much of an argument at all. I know of people who personally think the whole idea of the Big-Bang/Singularity-Expansion is preposterous. Guess what? Personal incredulity doesn't overturn facts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
........ if you want to find something bad enough, eventualy, you will, regardless if it is there to find or not.
