Maggie’s Religion explained in a new way

[theLBC]

i believe God is the personification of the ideal (man).
wise, strong, powerful, yet merciful and kind.

i believe that God exists in the hearts of the believers, and inspires them to uphold and strive for the standards of the ideal.
it is through the actions of the faithful that proof of God exists.

religion plants the seeds of faith in people that might not otherwise have God in their hearts.

while i have not received the gift of faith, i believe religion was and is an important component of society.
as somebody else opined, if you have no faith, how can there be hope?
is religion a pacifier for the poor?
if it is, is that a bad thing?

can God exist in your heart without believing in any religious dogma?
of course.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

That’s a lotta BS man, seriously.


Edit: Not a thing you wrote there was even the slightest bit compelling.

That is your issue to deal with, not mine. I can't believe enough for two.

 

[Supersubes]

That is your issue to deal with, not mine. I can't believe enough for two.

That’s EXACTLY what you were doing.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

That’s EXACTLY what your were doing.

Then if I see you in heaven we will both know I succeeded.

 

[cast1]

Being a Christian can be hard to understand to the casual, and perhaps especially to the educated observer. We are taught in our schools about science and observation and reproducible experimentation as the foundation for what merits belief. Faith, by definition however, entails belief in things unseen or not easily comprehended. It often happens that when we get a large share of education, we narrow what we are willing to consider as possible rather than broaden it.

I think the mistake of placing all your faith in the scientific method is that it assumes that our (man’s) way of collecting and ability to process information is at the top of the food chain in all the universe. I don’t buy that. It’s too big and we’re not that bright.

Think of this analogy. Octopi are very smart animals. They can forage, hunt, camouflage, and do some very impressive problem solving, things like opening jars for treats etc. Why can’t they understand differential calculus or construct a solar panel? The reason is that sufficient as their faculties are to meet their needs, there are many many strata of intelligence and discernment between an octopus and man. Even though we concretely share the same space, our existence is beyond what an octopus has the faculties to comprehend.

The Bible says this in short by saying God’s ways are higher than man’s ways. The intellect of man cannot begin to grasp the mind of God. I believe denying the existence of God based on the lack of scientific evidence is analogous to tasting an ice cube chipped from a glacier in your Coke and saying you know fully the contents of the entire glacier.

I am a physician by trade, a scientist. What I have learned is the more I know, the more I know I don’t know. Christ has made an immeasurable difference in my life in ways too numerous to list here and to me that is as real as breathing. Be very wary of believing kindness to your fellow man will satisfy God. It won’t. If anybody wants to talk about Jesus, shoot me a PM and I’ll elaborate. Love y’all.

 

[chrome]

That’s a lotta BS man, seriously.


Edit: Not a thing you wrote there was even the slightest bit compelling.

The evidence is literally every particle of matter or energy in existence.

This life is a vapor, for both believers and the heathen, it is your eternity that is at issue.

If you live like there is no God, then you had BETTER be right.

Bullshit.

If we were all honest, we would all say we were terrified. Every man worships something (even if it is himself). Every man seeks to be justified in some way. To tell yourself otherwise is a lie.

This is usually where conversations go sideways for the following reasons: when someone thinks and/or definitively declares that they know what other people think, believe, worship, etc. You telling me I "worship something" is simply false, and I can prove it with the following sentence: I do not worship anything (worship defined as the expression of reverence and adoration for a deity). As I said before, I know of no empirical evidence suggesting a deity exists, let alone the christian deity. It is presumptuous of you, and it is also a logical fallacy to hold this position.

Next, the argument being proposed (every single atom etc) as evidence towards an existence of a deity is of such a low standard, I could easily flip the argument around and say I have the same level of evidence and belief that pixies created each atom we know of in the world.

Last, when the discussion turns to idle threats about someone's "eternity that is at issue", this signals to me we aren't talking in the same manner. I like to explore why people believe what they believe and point out flawed thinking, I'd never take the road of hinting someone's thinking is going to land them in some fictional burning lake of fire.

 

[chrome]

Start with the ones concerning the messiah. The old testament was completed and canonized 400 years before Christ was born. It was translated from Hebrew into Greek over 200 years before he was born.

If you are really interested you will do your own research. It is my responsibility to speak truth and offer a defense of the faith.
But it isn't my job to hold your hand. I suspect that if you really wanted these answers, you would have found them already.

I was very religious through my early to late teens, regularly went to bible study from ages 10-18 with sincere and honest exploration of the scriptures. Probably not convincing enough for you, but I was a christian for the majority of my younger life and did search for meaning in the bible. Reading the bible was one of the primary contributors to not believing in christianity. It was evident, at least to me, the massive contradictions and human perspective of its authors, comfortably suggested none of the bible was divinely inspired or written by a deity.

So to answer you question, I did find my answers, and those answers set me free from the chains of theological thinking.

To your specific point out prophecy of the messiah, how does this actually convey a deity's morality? How are the two connected in any remote way? I dont think getting into the historical aspects of how many times the messiah story has repeated itself through out history, before christianity came to be, and beyond, would be helpful for this conversation. Goes without saying, I remain unconvinced that authors who wrote a story in early bronze age, and then later were able to read those stories and make new stories align with the older stories generates any meaningful confirmation of any type of prophecy.

 

[chrome]

Being a Christian can be hard to understand to the casual, and perhaps especially to the educated observer. We are taught in our schools about science and observation and reproducible experimentation as the foundation for what merits belief. Faith, by definition however, entails belief in things unseen or not easily comprehended. It often happens that when we get a large share of education, we narrow what we are willing to consider as possible rather than broaden it.

I think the mistake of placing all your faith in the scientific method is that it assumes that our (man’s) way of collecting and ability to process information is at the top of the food chain in all the universe. I don’t buy that. It’s too big and we’re not that bright.

Think of this analogy. Octopi are very smart animals. They can forage, hunt, camouflage, and do some very impressive problem solving, things like opening jars for treats etc. Why can’t they understand differential calculus or construct a solar panel? The reason is that sufficient as their faculties are to meet their needs, there are many many strata of intelligence and discernment between an octopus and man. Even though we concretely share the same space, our existence is beyond what an octopus has the faculties to comprehend.

The Bible says this in short by saying God’s ways are higher than man’s ways. The intellect of man cannot begin to grasp the mind of God. I believe denying the existence of God based on the lack of scientific evidence is analogous to tasting an ice cube chipped from a glacier in your Coke and saying you know fully the contents of the entire glacier.

I am a physician by trade, a scientist. What I have learned is the more I know, the more I know I don’t know. Christ has made an immeasurable difference in my life in ways too numerous to list here and to me that is as real as breathing. Be very wary of believing kindness to your fellow man will satisfy God. It won’t. If anybody wants to talk about Jesus, shoot me a PM and I’ll elaborate. Love y’all.

Hi Cast, thanks for your thoughtful reply, really appreciate it. I am also a scientist by trade (formal bench neuroscientist when I started out), and also possess a terminal degree (PhD, not MD). I also feel the same way, the more I learn as a human, the more I realize I do not know. The journey for knowledge will be lifelong, and I like i mentioned earlier in this post, I strive to believe as many true statements and strive to NOT believe as many false statements as possible.

I am confused by your statements suggesting the scientific method may be inadequate to acquire the knowledge on this particular subject. Could you try to elaborate for me? But I'd also disagree with the label of "putting faith in the scientific method". There is nothing faith based in this method, it is about the confidence level the method generates in eliminating false ideas and leaving the researchers with the most probable answer, i.e., its continued display of predictive results.

If I understand your statements about man not being able to grasp the mind of god, and thus our ways of trying to understand god are insufficient, this creates a bit of a circular argument, and prevents further discussion? Unless I am misunderstanding you.

The Bible says this in short by saying God’s ways are higher than man’s ways..

Honest question, why should someone take the bible as a source of truth on the existence of a god? The bible is the CLAIM to having the truth, it isn't the actual evidence. And since it is the claim to knowledge, how would we go about verifying the claims made in the bible are true?

Ultimately, I come back to prior statements made: there is no empirical evidence demonstrating a god exists, so I reject that claim. Also, there is still a MASSIVE amount of work to move the discussion from "a god exists" to "(insert specific religion god here) exists". The leap is significant, and at the end of the day, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am not here to deconvert anyone here on SH, but I enjoy conversations like this as it helps all of us view others perspectives. Being a die hard constitutionalist and 1A supporter, I really enjoy the religious freedom this country affords its citizens. Beyond evidence of a god existing, my actual #1 concern is more centered on the U.S. staying strictly secular, and try to remain outside the playground of endorsing any religion over another. This guarantees and protects everyone's religious liberties to the fullest.

 

[chrome]

The Bible is our moral compass. I believe Jesus was God’s way of making his presence tangible for the common man.

How do you square the massive amount of amoral commandments through out the bible as someone living in 2019? What did you do to ignore certain directives and embrace others contained in the bible?

 

[cast1]

If I understand your statements about man not being able to grasp the mind of god, and thus our ways of trying to understand god are insufficient, this creates a bit of a circular argument, and prevents further discussion? Unless I am misunderstanding you.

Honest question, why should someone take the bible as a source of truth on the existence of a god? The bible is the CLAIM to having the truth, it isn't the actual evidence. And since it is the claim to knowledge, how would we go about verifying the claims made in the bible are true?

No, no misunderstanding. It doesn't prevent further discussion but it does dispute our use of current empirical means to demonstrate the existence of God, or many other levels of understanding. I am saying that as bright as we are, we are not nearly as bright as we think. Science changes like the wind. Think of the fallacies over the ages that have been upheld as scientific fact. Flat earth, heliocentrism. State of the art medicine was once blood letting. Ask Washington. In my field, beta blockers were once the best thing since shirt pockets, now we know beta blockers increase your overall risk of dying of stroke. It's honestly a little haughty of us.

 

[Campguy308]

If you live like there is no God, then you had BETTER be right.

Why should we live any differently either way? My actions are not based on fear of eternal punishment.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I was very religious through my early to late teens, regularly went to bible study from ages 10-18 with sincere and honest exploration of the scriptures. Probably not convincing enough for you, but I was a christian for the majority of my younger life and did search for meaning in the bible. Reading the bible was one of the primary contributors to not believing in christianity. It was evident, at least to me, the massive contradictions and human perspective of its authors, comfortably suggested none of the bible was divinely inspired or written by a deity.

So to answer you question, I did find my answers, and those answers set me free from the chains of theological thinking.

To your specific point out prophecy of the messiah, how does this actually convey a deity's morality? How are the two connected in any remote way? I dont think getting into the historical aspects of how many times the messiah story has repeated itself through out history, before christianity came to be, and beyond, would be helpful for this conversation. Goes without saying, I remain unconvinced that authors who wrote a story in early bronze age, and then later were able to read those stories and make new stories align with the older stories generates any meaningful confirmation of any type of prophecy.

Saying you "used" to be a christian is like saying you "used" to be a man. It is not something that can be put on and put off like a garment. It either irrevocably changes you, or it was never real.

I have no doubt you were very religious ...but that isn't the same thing.

As far as the scriptures go, studying them without the internal abiding an illumination of the Holy Spirit is like trying to understand a foreign language with no point of reference. I grew up in church also. I wasn't saved until I was 15. The difference it made in my understanding is dramatic. It was literally like someone turned on a light in a dark room I was fumbling around in.

I really can't explain it any better than that. The scriptures are not like any other piece of literature, they are alive...and the person that is speaking through them actually has residence inside you.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Why should we live any differently either way? My actions are not based on fear of eternal punishment.

Because there will be a judgement. The standard we will be judged against isn't other human kind, but the absolute perfect, holy and righteous standard of God Himself. So, how good of a God are you? That is the question you will have to answer.

At that point, you will either have God Himself as an advocate and the blood of Christ will cover your sins with HIS righteousness, or you will have to account for them yourself.

 

[chrome]

No, no misunderstanding. It doesn't prevent further discussion but it does dispute our use of current empirical means to demonstrate the existence of God, or many other levels of understanding. I am saying that as bright as we are, we are not nearly as bright as we think. Science changes like the wind. Think of the fallacies over the ages that have been upheld as scientific fact. Flat earth, heliocentrism. State of the art medicine was once blood letting. Ask Washington. In my field, beta blockers were once the best thing since shirt pockets, now we know beta blockers increase your overall risk of dying of stroke. It's honestly a little haughty of us.

I agree science does change a lot, but it changes because the methods and processes allow for new information to be brought to the table, corrected, and put forth for further discussion. I consider this a good thing in my mind.

All those examples you gave are spot on, and I agree they were current science at the time, but science allowed for the self-correction.

So controlling for the scientific method, how would you prove the existence of a deity?

 

[Supersubes]

Saying you "used" to be a christian is like saying you "used" to be a man. It is not something that can be put on and put off like a garment. It either irrevocably changes you, or it was never real.

I have no doubt you were very religious ...but that isn't the same thing.

As far as the scriptures go, studying them without the internal abiding an illumination of the Holy Spirit is like trying to understand a foreign language with no point of reference. I grew up in church also. I wasn't saved until I was 15. The difference it made in my understanding is dramatic. It was literally like someone turned on a light in a dark room I was fumbling around in.

I really can't explain it any better than that. The scriptures are not like any other piece of literature, they are alive...and the person that is speaking through them actually has residence inside you.

Like chrome, I used to be a christian. I was brought up in it from a young age, I studied, I learned, but I couldn’t shake how human it all seems. So full of errors and contradictions. You know what we mean when we say this Skookum. It might seem unreasonable to you, but not everybody is going to come to the same conclusions as you.


I won’t speak for chrome here, but the older I get and the more I learn about life, the further I get from organized religion. Literally nothing points me towards an organized religion.

 

[chrome]

Saying you "used" to be a christian is like saying you "used" to be a man. It is not something that can be put on and put off like a garment. It either irrevocably changes you, or it was never real.

I have no doubt you were very religious ...but that isn't the same thing.

As far as the scriptures go, studying them without the internal abiding an illumination of the Holy Spirit is like trying to understand a foreign language with no point of reference. I grew up in church also. I wasn't saved until I was 15. The difference it made in my understanding is dramatic. It was literally like someone turned on a light in a dark room I was fumbling around in.

That's ok, I predicted the statement's I gave wouldn't be good enough from your point of view. Also as expected, your statements above are a clear example of the "no true scotsman fallacy" when it comes the christian belief system. Not a strong position to engage in conversation from.

I really can't explain it any better than that. The scriptures are not like any other piece of literature, they are alive...and the person that is speaking through them actually has residence inside you.

Please provide evidence that a book is alive, and that something else other than my own agency resides inside of me.

 

[Campguy308]

Like chrome, I used to be a christian. I was brought up in it from a young age, I studied, I learned, but I couldn’t shake how human it all seems. So full of errors and contradictions. You know what we mean when we say this Skookum. It might seem unreasonable to you, but not everybody is going to come to the same conclusions as you.


I won’t speak for chrome here, but the older I get and the more I learn about life, the further I get from organized religion. Literally nothing points me towards an organized religion.

Same, I thought I might come back some day, but the more I analyze it over time, the less likely that seems.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Like chrome, I used to be a christian. I was brought up in it from a young age, I studied, I learned, but I couldn’t shake how human it all seems. So full of errors and contradictions. You know what we mean when we say this Skookum. It might seem unreasonable to you, but not everybody is going to come to the same conclusions as you.


I won’t speak for chrome here, but the older I get and the more I learn about life, the further I get from organized religion. Literally nothing points me towards an organized religion.

"So full of errors and contradictions"...show me.

"You know what we mean when we say this Skookum. It might seem unreasonable to you, but not everybody is going to come to the same conclusions as you"... agreed. But the cure is available to all.

 

[Supersubes]

I agree science does change a lot, but it changes because the methods and processes allow for new information to be brought to the table, corrected, and put forth for further discussion. I consider this a good thing in my mind.

All those examples you gave are spot on, and I agree they were current science at the time, but science allowed for the self-correction.

So controlling for the scientific method, how would you prove the existence of a deity?

I agree, the ability of science to change is a very good thing.

 

[Supersubes]

"So full of errors and contradictions"...show me.

"You know what we mean when we say this Skookum. It might seem unreasonable to you, but not everybody is going to come to the same conclusions as you"... agreed. But the cure is available to all.

Way too much to write here, sorry.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

That's ok, I predicted the statement's I gave wouldn't be good enough from your point of view. Also as expected, your statements above are a clear example of the "no true scotsman fallacy" when it comes the christian belief system. Not a strong position to engage in conversation from.




Please provide evidence that a book is alive, and that something else other than my own agency resides inside of me.

Simply rejecting a statement as untrue, doesn't make it untrue. You are engaging in the same style argument that you are criticizing.

Of course you don't agree, I just spent time explaining exactly why you don't.

Nothing besides your own "agency" resides inside of you. I just made that point also.

 

[chrome]

"So full of errors and contradictions"...show me.

"You know what we mean when we say this Skookum. It might seem unreasonable to you, but not everybody is going to come to the same conclusions as you"... agreed. But the cure is available to all.

Here are 558 contradictions, to begin with:

Contradictions as listed in the SAB book

Here is a nice visual representation of the known contradictions:

bibviz.com - Domain Name For Sale | Dan.com

I found a great domain name for sale on Dan.com. Check it out!

bibviz.com

 

[chrome]

Simply rejecting a statement as untrue, doesn't make it untrue. You are engaging in the same style argument that you are criticizing.

Of course you don't agree, I just spent time explaining exactly why you don't.

I reject it because you've provided nothing to support your claim. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Nothing besides your own "agency" resides inside of you. I just made that point also.

Then what does the quote below mean? Could you explain further?

and the person that is speaking through them actually has residence inside you.

 

[Supersubes]

Simply rejecting a statement as untrue, doesn't make it untrue. You are engaging in the same style argument that you are criticizing.

Of course you don't agree, I just spent time explaining exactly why you don't.

Nothing besides your own "agency" resides inside of you. I just made that point also.

By the same token, claiming something is true doesn’t make it true. You've repeatedly made bold supernatural claims, which are totally unsupported.

 

[Mr.BR]

Nah, just a dude in the heavens who gave up on us a log time ago..

Bench

Realy just a comic book character made up by man

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Here are 558 contradictions, to begin with:

Contradictions as listed in the SAB book

Here is a nice visual representation of the known contradictions:

bibviz.com - Domain Name For Sale | Dan.com

I found a great domain name for sale on Dan.com. Check it out!

bibviz.com

LOL! the "scholarly" site you referenced committed suicide in it's very first example.

The word yatsar in Gen 2:19 can be very properly translated had formed. In fact, it is translated exactly that way in many translations. The ancient Hebrew language didn't have a past perfect tense.

Did God Create Animals or Man First? - Apologetics Press

After reading the first two chapters of the Bible, some skeptics, in an attempt to disprove the Bible’s inerrancy, have accused the writer of Genesis of erring in regard to the record of events occurring on day six of creation. While Genesis 1:24-27 plainly indicates that man was created after...

www.apologeticspress.org

About Hebrew Nouns and Verbs | AHRC

A general overview of how Hebrew nouns and verbs are formed and used in the Hebrew Bible.

www.ancient-hebrew.org

If you need an excuse not to believe, then one is as good as another.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

I reject it because you've provided nothing to support your claim. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.





Then what does the quote below mean? Could you explain further?

I think you missed the bold italics on you.

 

[chrome]

LOL! the "scholarly" site you referenced committed suicide in it's very first example.

The word yatsar in Gen 2:19 can be very properly translated had formed. In fact, it is translated exactly that way in many translations. The ancient Hebrew language didn't have a past perfect tense.

Did God Create Animals or Man First? - Apologetics Press

After reading the first two chapters of the Bible, some skeptics, in an attempt to disprove the Bible’s inerrancy, have accused the writer of Genesis of erring in regard to the record of events occurring on day six of creation. While Genesis 1:24-27 plainly indicates that man was created after...

www.apologeticspress.org

About Hebrew Nouns and Verbs | AHRC

A general overview of how Hebrew nouns and verbs are formed and used in the Hebrew Bible.

www.ancient-hebrew.org

If you need an excuse not to believe, then one is as good as another.

Not following your concern, the contradicting passages below:

In the first creation story, humans are created after the other animals.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:25-27

In the second story, humans were created before the other animals.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 2:18-19

 

[Deleted member 113831]

By the same token, claiming something is true doesn’t make it true. You've repeatedly made bold supernatural claims, which are totally unsupported.

Jesus did miracles before thier very eyes and they nailed Him to a tree. I don't expect I'll receive any better treatment should things progress to that point in my lifetime.

 

[chrome]

Jesus did miracles before thier very eyes and they nailed Him to a tree. I don't expect I'll receive any better treatment should things progress to that point in my lifetime.

How do you know he committed miracles? Are there any first hand, eye-witness accounts of this miracles we can verify?

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Not following your concern, the contradicting passages below:

In the first creation story, humans are created after the other animals.

In the second story, humans were created before the other animals.

Really? I have to spoon feed you? In Gen 2:19 the word yatsar, which in your post is translated as formed, could very properly be translated as had formed.

The difference being that the use of "formed" makes it sound as if they were created right at that moment and therefore after Adam. The translation of "had formed" places the creation of the animals before Adam, bringing both passages into agreement.

 

[Rthur]

It would seem that both sides are passionate about their "beliefs".
Strange feelings would enter into Scientific vs Faith debates...
While I'm one that likes to push boundries this particular one is taboo on this site.

R

 

[Deleted member 113831]

How do you know he committed miracles? Are there any first hand, eye-witness accounts of this miracles we can verify?

If he didn't, then why did the jealous religious leaders of the day want to kill him? You forget that Jesus wasn't the only one doing miracles. He transferred that power to the apostles in certain instances to verify thier authority even after he had ascended.

These same apostles preferred gruesome deaths at the hands of those same leaders rather than recant.

You also forget that he arose and walked around for 40 days after his "death" and before his ascension, appearing to over 500 people at one time in at least one instance. None of this was in some secret back room. At least 2 of his miracles involved several thousand people at once.

It was all done in a city of at least a couple 100,000 people, it was done in public, and it was done at a time when Jerusalem was even more packed due to the feasts that were going on.

 

[chrome]

Really? I have to spoon feed you? In Gen 2:19 the word yatsar, which in your post is translated as formed, could very properly be translated as had formed.

The difference being that the use of "formed" makes it sound as if they were created right at that moment and therefore after Adam. The translation of "had formed" places the creation of the animals before Adam, bringing both passages into agreement.

Thanks, I see your perspective with the above. Still seems pretty murky and gray, if reading it from the context of divinely inspired book.

EDIT to clarify as well: While I dont expect you to role through 500+ potential contradictions, I'd also expect a reasonable person to admit the bible possesses contradictions, and that is is not a perfect book by any stretch of the means. It absolutely should be valued as a piece of literature, and it contains a lot of positive lessons and fables, and it was one of many "first attempts" to codify the developing world's social norms. But I to state it is simply a book full of claims needing further evidence to be declared true.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

It would seem that both sides are passionate about their "beliefs".
Strange feelings would enter into Scientific vs Faith debates...
While I'm one that likes to push boundries this particular one is taboo on this site.

R

We are being civil. There hasn't been any name calling as of yet. If the mods decide to delete it that is thier right.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Thanks, I see your perspective with the above. Still seems pretty murky and gray, if reading it from the context of divinely inspired book.

The original words are inspired, translations should never claim to be.

We preserve the jot and tittle so that the word may be preserved. We preserve the word so that the sentence may be preserved. We preserve the sentence so that the precept may be preserved.

The law of the Lord is "line upon line" and "precept upon precept". Small discrepencies do not alter the message. The precepts are repeated throughout. We interpret the unclear by the clear, not the other way around.

 

[chrome]

If he didn't, then why did the jealous religious leaders of the day want to kill him? You forget that Jesus wasn't the only one doing miracles. He transferred that power to the apostles in certain instances to verify thier authority even after he had ascended.

These same apostles preferred gruesome deaths at the hands of those same leaders rather than recant.

You also forget that he arose and walked around for 40 days after his "death" and before his ascension, appearing to over 500 people at one time in at least one instance. None of this was in some secret back room. At least 2 of his miracles involved several thousand people at once.

It was all done in a city of at least a couple 100,000 people, it was done in public, and it was done at a time when Jerusalem was even more packed due to the feasts that were going on.

Like our colleague and friend mentioned above, I think we are reaching the level of tolerance of this topic on SH. I am happy to continue talking, but also want to respect the site rules. I'll end with one last item and let you have the final word/post, but your response to my last question suggests to me you are trying to shift the burden of proof to me to prove a negative, which is also another logical fallacy.

Not in my nature to be repetitive, but those who make the claims have the burden to support the claims, and if you claim someone committed miracles 2k years ago, I'd need to once again see verifiable evidence those events occured. Citing back to the scripture is a not an appropriate reference as we have no way to verify authors, witnesses, accounts, details, and so on.

If you want to simply say you have FAITH these miracles occured, than I am happy to accept that, but saying you KNOW they happened, is intellectually dishonest position unless further supported.

 

[jinxx4ever]

Short story,
i didn't accept Christ into my life till i was 45 yrs old, that's been 18 years ago. I thought i was a good person before that day. Grew up in a christian family, always believed in Christ, but it wasn't until i was raised out of that horse tank that had been filled earlier that day by a couple asked to do it so it had time to warm (i was baptized in a tank in the middle of the rodeo arena in Shawnee, Ok. by an auctioner/minister) it wasn't until i came up out of the water, that i realized how bad of a person i had been all my life up to that point. All the evil that "was" in me was washed away. I remember everything about that day, every detail leading up to that moment like it was yesterday, and that "feeling" as i was raised up from the water. It's a feeling like no other i had every experienced in my life, There's no way to describe it and i can still feel it as i write this. I remember the couple that helped, the lady asking me as i stood there in the water, "how do u feel?" At first I couldn't answer as i had no words to describe that feeling. Finally i said, I feel empty, not a bad empty, but like a vessel that has all it's contents emptied. I felt pure, like the day i was born. I had absolutely nothing in me at that moment. I can still feel it today, unfortunately as time has went by, the vessel has refilled , not always with good things, but i do the best i can and i believe God sees that. There's no new way to explain religion, it's been the same since the beginning of time, it's just man wants to justify his short comings anyway he can. Changing the meaning of religion is one way he tries. God has personally saved me from destruction twice in my life that i positively know about and experienced first hand, plus numerous other times when i have asked for help. i'm sure others have had similar experiences. Hope u all have a great day

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Like our colleague and friend mentioned above, I think we are reaching the level of tolerance of this topic on SH. I am happy to continue talking, but also want to respect the site rules. I'll end with one last item and let you have the final word/post, but your response to my last question suggests to me you are trying to shift the burden of proof to me to prove a negative, which is also another logical fallacy.

Not in my nature to be repetitive, but those who make the claims have the burden to support the claims, and if you claim someone committed miracles 2k years ago, I'd need to once again see verifiable evidence those events occured. Citing back to the scripture is a not an appropriate reference as we have no way to verify authors, witnesses, accounts, details, and so on.

If you want to simply say you have FAITH these miracles occured, than I am happy to accept that, but saying you KNOW they happened, is intellectually dishonest position unless further supported.

We have as much or more evidence that these things happened than any other happening in ancient history. If you were to scrutinize the rest of secular history to the same standard you are trying to hold the bible to, then there would be no history books ever written.

I can't verify positively that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg address, though I think it's reasonable to believe so.

 

[JMGlasgow]

I'm a pastafarian and I worship the flying spaghetti monster

 

[W54/XM-388]

Not in my nature to be repetitive, but those who make the claims have the burden to support the claims, and if you claim someone committed miracles 2k years ago, I'd need to once again see verifiable evidence those events occured. Citing back to the scripture is a not an appropriate reference as we have no way to verify authors, witnesses, accounts, details, and so on.

If you take a look at what is "accepted" history for things in the 2000 years ago and earlier, you'll probably find that a lot of things everyone accept as history only have the word of one or two historical writers often written long after the event and often not even first hand accounts. Then either by accident or on purpose, there is just not piles of evidence for some ancient historical events. It's hard enough to get concrete evidence of recent disputed history.

If you apply your same standards of proof demand to about all ancient history and even history from several hundred years ago, you'd have to discount the bigger part of history that we accept today...

I mean did you verify the identity of who carved that tablet & that it wasn't just a joke?
Did you track down who carved that wall and see if they weren't embellishing the event?
Are you sure that tapestry didn't just get filled with hearsay and 4th hand stories in a land were almost nobody was literate?
Can you prove the local ruler didn't change the historical record to make themselves look better?

What it comes down to is if you want to find a reason to doubt something, you can.

To give you an example of how even very certain facts can be doubted:
Many details of what went down in WWII and various atrocities by various parties are accepted as fact, yet there are plenty that will provide strong arguments and their own proof / research / questions that the actual events were vastly different, some prove to be true later on, such as Germans being executed for atrocities later acknowledged to be done by our "allies" the soviets. Other parts of the story seemingly unassailable are still questioned by people even in countries where questioning the "official facts" is a crime. And this is all while eye witnesses are still alive.
Imagine in another 100 years how easy it will be for someone to claim there isn't proper "proof" to their satisfaction for anything about the narrative they don't agree with?

History is a bit of a mess when you really look at it & it is rather hard to be sure of exact smaller details of things that happened since you mostly won't find your incontrovertible proof, rather at best a written record or two, it is sometimes not even totally clear which parties destroyed a buried ruined city.

 

[chrome]

We have as much or more evidence that these things happened than any other happening in ancient history. If you were to scrutinize the rest of secular history to the same standard you are trying to hold the bible to, then there would be no history books ever written.

No, unfortunately we do not. The history does not lend a lot of evidence the accounts and miracles outlined in the gospels. Would recommend looking up Bart Ehrman's work at UNC Chapel Hill and Richard Carrier of Columbia University. They both are academics who have spent their life studying ancient literature, and are well published in this arena.

I can't verify positively that Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg address, though I think it's reasonable to believe so.

I agree, and there are substantial records and data from multiple sources that triangulate his existence was factual, which is night and day to the accounts of jesus and the gospel stories.

One other thing on this note, Lincoln didn't claim he was god. So, back to my previous quote via David Hume/Laplance/Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[theLBC]

are things like love, honesty and integrity real, or can we only assume they exist from the empirical evidence of specific actions?

 

[chrome]

If you take a look at what is "accepted" history for things in the 2000 years ago and earlier, you'll probably find that a lot of things everyone accept as history only have the word of one or two historical writers often written long after the event and often not even first hand accounts. Then either by accident or on purpose, there is just not piles of evidence for some ancient historical events. It's hard enough to get concrete evidence of recent disputed history.

If you apply your same standards of proof demand to about all ancient history and even history from several hundred years ago, you'd have to discount the bigger part of history that we accept today...

I mean did you verify the identity of who carved that tablet & that it wasn't just a joke?
Did you track down who carved that wall and see if they weren't embellishing the event?
Are you sure that tapestry didn't just get filled with hearsay and 4th hand stories in a land were almost nobody was literate?
Can you prove the local ruler didn't change the historical record to make themselves look better?

What it comes down to is if you want to find a reason to doubt something, you can.

To give you an example of how even very certain facts can be doubted:
Many details of what went down in WWII and various atrocities by various parties are accepted as fact, yet there are plenty that will provide strong arguments and their own proof / research / questions that the actual events were vastly different, some prove to be true later on, such as Germans being executed for atrocities later acknowledged to be done by our "allies" the soviets. Other parts of the story seemingly unassailable are still questioned by people even in countries where questioning the "official facts" is a crime. And this is all while eye witnesses are still alive.
Imagine in another 100 years how easy it will be for someone to claim there isn't proper "proof" to their satisfaction for anything about the narrative they don't agree with?

History is a bit of a mess when you really look at it & it is rather hard to be sure of exact smaller details of things that happened since you mostly won't find your incontrovertible proof, rather at best a written record or two, it is sometimes not even totally clear which parties destroyed a buried ruined city.

Lots to respond to above, but I'll try to summarize. You are semi-correct with your middle sentence about finding doubt, i'd just ask you restate it as skeptical. As a scientist, the null hypothesis is where I begin. I doubt a claim until I can find reasonable amount of empirical evidence to suggest it is true, or the other alternatives are false, thus leaving the remaining answer. The dangers of accepting a claim as true without support, if practices regularly, could potentially be catastrophic for them.

And something I said above to the other poster, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And I wholeheartedly agree history is a complete mess, and a lot of the victors of war wrote the history books to suite their narrative. Which in my mind, would increase my level of skepticism warranted depending on the topic. I'd also offer I am not looking for incontrovertible proof, rather as I've said earlier am looking for claims to meet the same burden of proof we accept today on other subjects on a daily basis.

 

[chrome]

are things like love, honesty and integrity real, or can we only assume they exist from the empirical evidence of specific actions?

Great question. My thoughts are these words describe behaviors we exhibit, and I think we could measure these behaviors, so I think I'd answer with the later.

 

[acudaowner]

so in closing i guess that all makes it kinda ok to marry your first cousin who is now your wife that used to be your aunt sally or uncle johns 3rd brother twice removed that the family don't talk about who had that surgery to remove a growth or a uncles' sisters kid with learning disabilities whom it was ok when you were young and you were kiss in cousins , but now she is carrying you child you goin have to marry er what ever the case god still loves you . even when your family don't anymore . lol

 

[Mr.BR]

Religions come and go and there were plenty long before chistianity and plenty afterward , other ones thrived and went the way of Dodo ,comix that you read today would likely not be recognisable when compared to texts that made up the collection that was rewriten and amended untold number of times

Taking cues from the these texts as facts.......

 

[cast1]

Chrome, it would seem that you are willing to overlook the shortcomings of science and the men who posit its findings, but won’t extend the same latitude with matters of faith. Science can be wrong over and over until it’s right and that’s okay, but faith is impossibly incorrect from the get go... Your burden of proof seems much heavier for the gospel than other historical accounts. It really seems like I’m the end you choose what you are willing to believe and what you won’t, and pick the evidence that supports you’re choice. You won’t accept something as possible just because you haven’t experienced it yourself. Of course I could be wrong.

What would you say to the recovered drug addicts, the people with rescued marriages and rebuilt relationships, the reformed sex addict who credit Christ? Many of them have tried secular means of intervention only to fail time and again. Most of them will tell you that it really had nothing to do with them, but that God reached down and pulled them from what my pastor calls the miry clay and put the broken pieces of their life back together. What of someone like me who got ran over by a drunk driver as a youth and should have died on the side of the highway, but instead beat every odd to succeed in my recovery and in my life. There is no way except God’s intervention that seats me where I am today. Are these repaired lives not real? Am I hoodwinked? Those are the metrics I use when looking at the reality of God.

Skepticism is certainly not a new thing either. Thomas was one of the twelve who had walked with Jesus and saw him perform miracles, yet he wouldn’t believe he was resurrected until Jesus had him put his finger through the holes in his hands and thrust his hand in Jesus’ side. The apostle Paul, arguably the greatest christian in history, used to kill Christians as a profession.

 

[Deleted member 113831]

No, unfortunately we do not. The history does not lend a lot of evidence the accounts and miracles outlined in the gospels. Would recommend looking up Bart Ehrman's work at UNC Chapel Hill and Richard Carrier of Columbia University. They both are academics who have spent their life studying ancient literature, and are well published in this arena.




I agree, and there are substantial records and data from multiple sources that triangulate his existence was factual, which is night and day to the accounts of jesus and the gospel stories.

One other thing on this note, Lincoln didn't claim he was god. So, back to my previous quote via David Hume/Laplance/Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You do realize that secular, unbelieving Jewish historians such as Josephus, Eusebius, Tacitus, Origen, Julius Africanus and Celsus attest to the "rumors" of what Jesus was doing. Josephus especially, was known to actually be in Jerusalem at that time and was writing his account first hand.

They claim the miracles he was performing were by sorcery, and they attest to the things he supposedly did and the penalty he paid for them. In doing so, they actually end up bearing witness to the events, even if the commentary is in the negative. Even the earliest examples we have of the Jewish Talmud mention the events and refer to him as a sorcerer.

So, if it is the testimony of unbelievers that you put trust in, there is plenty of that as well.

 

[chrome]

Chrome, it would seem that you are willing to overlook the shortcomings of science and the men who posit its findings, but won’t extend the same latitude with matters of faith. Science can be wrong over and over until it’s right and that’s okay, but faith is impossibly incorrect from the get go... Your burden of proof seems much heavier for the gospel than other historical accounts. It really seems like I’m the end you choose what you are willing to believe and what you won’t, and pick the evidence that supports you’re choice. You won’t accept something as possible just because you haven’t experienced it yourself. Of course I could be wrong.

I think you are setting up an apples to oranges comparison. Science isn't a static body of knowledge, as you know. It is a methodology to discover knowledge. As new methods become developed and instruments are fine tuned, theories revisited, new knowledge is created and then the theories shift to accept this new data.

Faith, by definition, is believing in something without evidence and/or for no reasonable reason. It isn't necessarily about what is incorrect or correct, it is what is demonstrable and not demonstrable.

It may not come across as genuine over the forum, but I am honestly EXTREMELY open to the idea of a deity, afterlife, transcendent realms, etc., I just remain unconvinced they exist as of today.

What would you say to the recovered drug addicts, the people with rescued marriages and rebuilt relationships, the reformed sex addict who credit Christ? Many of them have tried secular means of intervention only to fail time and again. Most of them will tell you that it really had nothing to do with them, but that God reached down and pulled them from what my pastor calls the miry clay and put the broken pieces of their life back together. What of someone like me who got ran over by a drunk driver as a youth and should have died on the side of the highway, but instead beat every odd to succeed in my recovery and in my life. There is no way except God’s intervention that seats me where I am today. Are these repaired lives not real? Am I hoodwinked? Those are the metrics I use when looking at the reality of God.

All of those stories sound amazing, and as a healthcare professional myself I am obviously extremely happy for those you know who have overcome those obstacles, including yourself. But I still have to ask, just because the odds were so small, you equate these circumstances to only a divine intervention being the answer? Could it have been other known biological processes, modern medicine, family support, insert other tangible reasons here, that helped you and the others pull through?

Obviously, these stories are super nuanced and would require specifics, but to answer you questions, the lives are obviously repaired, but how do these situations prove a deity intervened beyond a reasonable doubt?

And while these positive stories can speak volumes to the strength of behind belief, we also have to balance them with the other end of the spectrum, specifically the absolutely awful things that happen every day through out the world. UNICEF states 40,000 children die each day, under the age of 5, from the lack of drinking water and food. What about these lives? How do we reconcile the divine plan against both ends of the spectrum?

Skepticism is certainly not a new thing either. Thomas was one of the twelve who had walked with Jesus and saw him perform miracles, yet he wouldn’t believe he was resurrected until Jesus had him put his finger through the holes in his hands and thrust his hand in Jesus’ side. The apostle Paul, arguably the greatest christian in history, used to kill Christians as a profession.

You probably know where I am going w/this, but how do we know these apostle's even existed? And if they did exist, is there conclusive evidence they ever met jesus? How would we verify this?

 

[chrome]

You do realize that secular, unbelieving Jewish historians such as Josephus, Eusebius, Tacitus, Origen, Julius Africanus and Celsus attest to the "rumors" of what Jesus was doing. Josephus especially, was known to actually be in Jerusalem at that time and was writing his account first hand.

They claim the miracles he was performing were by sorcery, and they attest to the things he supposedly did and the penalty he paid for them. In doing so, they actually end up bearing witness to the events, even if the commentary is in the negative. Even the earliest examples we have of the Jewish Talmud mention the events and refer to him as a sorcerer.

So, if it is the testimony of unbelievers that you put trust in, there is plenty of that as well.

I am familiar with names you mentioned above, several of them living decades and even centuries after the jesus figure was supposedly crucified. I am more familiar with josephus and tacitus personally.

They have triangulation in a limited amount of texts suggesting a figure named jesus existed, and was crucified. In the interim, lets grant these two accounts were correct and someone named jesus was crucified by the romans. What does this subsequently prove? Romans were slicing and dicing a lot of people with this type of method in this time, so I am wondering how we confirm this was anything outside of the ordinary?