Jesus the man or Jesus the Son of God

[Fist and Faith]

I think that if someone you TRUSTED witnessed something that sounded improbable, you would give a lot more credence - UNLESS skepticism is your ultimate dogma. WHEN something is written is irrelevant next to that. It couyld've been written three years ago and be equally daft - or reliable, based on whether you know the witness, and how well, or not.

You argue my case. None of us can make any claim to have even slightly known anyone who died 2,000 years ago.

Exact words? I think you have a point - in some cases. But the general sense of the words? That's a different matter altogether. If you dare to accept ANY history AT ALL as true, then you must accept the general sense of what is reported as having been said. From there it is a short step to events. You can only reject them out of hand if you have an unreasoning dogma AGAINST them possibly - ever - happening. Which puts you in the place of the unreasoning person and the person who accepts the evidence of their senses or of authority that they trust as more reasonable.

I believe the writers of the Bible in the same way I believe Neale Donald Walsch. I don't believe he was writing "WHY! WHY!" out of frustration, and the pen in his hand began writing the words of God in response. I believe he did what he could to make sense of all that happened in his life, and in the world, and wrote of the answers he found and came up with in that particular format.

To believe the events of the Bible - to believe things that can't happen actually did, because of supernatural agents - I'd need a little evidence. I've never experienced anything that could remotely be confused for a miracle, and I've never heard anyone describe any miracle they'd experienced that was at all convincing.

[rusmeister]

I think that if someone you TRUSTED witnessed something that sounded improbable, you would give a lot more credence - UNLESS skepticism is your ultimate dogma. WHEN something is written is irrelevant next to that. It couyld've been written three years ago and be equally daft - or reliable, based on whether you know the witness, and how well, or not.

You argue my case. None of us can make any claim to have even slightly known anyone who died 2,000 years ago.

On the contrary. I argue the case that it is extremely probable that the claims made actually WERE witnessed, and believed by people who knew the character of the witnesses.

Exact words? I think you have a point - in some cases. But the general sense of the words? That's a different matter altogether. If you dare to accept ANY history AT ALL as true, then you must accept the general sense of what is reported as having been said. From there it is a short step to events. You can only reject them out of hand if you have an unreasoning dogma AGAINST them possibly - ever - happening. Which puts you in the place of the unreasoning person and the person who accepts the evidence of their senses or of authority that they trust as more reasonable.

I believe the writers of the Bible in the same way I believe Neale Donald Walsch. I don't believe he was writing "WHY! WHY!" out of frustration, and the pen in his hand began writing the words of God in response. I believe he did what he could to make sense of all that happened in his life, and in the world, and wrote of the answers he found and came up with in that particular format.

To believe the events of the Bible - to believe things that can't happen actually did, because of supernatural agents - I'd need a little evidence. I've never experienced anything that could remotely be confused for a miracle, and I've never heard anyone describe any miracle they'd experienced that was at all convincing.

Here the thing that leaps out at me is that you write as if there were not a whole slew of events described in the Bible that historians agree actually happened. From the fall of the Assyrian state to Roman-occupied Jerusalem, Scripture is full of historical events that are agreed upon and confirmed. Mythology does not weave itself into historical record. It is prehistorical at best. What we have with Scripture is miraculous events described on a background of actual historical events. This strange fact does not in itself prove the miraculous, but it casts enormous doubt on the idea that the events described were simply made up.

Now if you are speaking specifically of miracles, I still think Lewis's "Miracles" the best response. A person with a dogma that miracles CANNOT be will never see them, no matter what evidence is offered, for the dogma denies the evidence from the beginning. If I may specifically reference Orthodox Tradition, we are quite free to be skeptical about many claims of miracles. We are not obligated to believe in miracles simply because somebody claimed to experience one.

I myself have experienced events which may be best classified as positive answer to prayer rather than miracle, although their improbable nature made them seem quite like miracles. If I did not believe in supernatural intervention, I COULD explain them naturally, although with a significant order of improbability. But being able to accept the supernatural, I find that more probable than the improbable explanations that natural explanations would require. The main point is that it is an ultimate acceptance of the possibility of the supernatural or a dogmatic rejection of it (for whatever reason).

[Fist and Faith]

I think that if someone you TRUSTED witnessed something that sounded improbable, you would give a lot more credence - UNLESS skepticism is your ultimate dogma. WHEN something is written is irrelevant next to that. It couyld've been written three years ago and be equally daft - or reliable, based on whether you know the witness, and how well, or not.

You argue my case. None of us can make any claim to have even slightly known anyone who died 2,000 years ago.

On the contrary. I argue the case that it is extremely probable that the claims made actually WERE witnessed, and believed by people who knew the character of the witnesses.

It's all quite a house of cards.
-The person who claims to have seen or experienced this or that could have been writing metaphorically about what s/he experienced, or contemplated. Those s/he told about it may have taken it as a real event or a metaphor, but those who they told are now farther removed from it.
-Even if s/he did believe something supernatural that didn't happen did happen those who knew that person cannot corroborate anything other than their assessment of that person's character. That they thought the person who reported it was honest does not come close to establishing that that person witnessed or experienced a miracle.
-Yes, there's the possibility of delusion. I imagine everybody knows what I mean when I say I've thought I heard someone say something, when, in fact, nobody was there. It happens. It happens to others much more frequently than it does to me. (Only a word or two several times in my life, and, coincidentally, the very words I was thinking at the time.) Some people develop mental illnesses later in life, so, one who was always of solid character is now in question.
-Lies. It could happen. Maybe one or another of the Bible's miracles were "witnessed" by someone who was feeling left out. Was every miracle in the Bible witnessed by someone who several people knew to be of unimpeachable character? Or is it possible that any of those people would have been willing to go along with the story for some reason?

That's just a few of the easiest problems I have with assuming a miracle witnessed 2,000 years ago actually happened.

On the flipside, I've never experienced, or known anyone who's experienced, anything that smacks even slightly of the supernatural. The explanation for the miracles you believe took place might be actual miracles, the existence of which can't be supported; or they might be errors of human judgement, misunderstandings, lies, or mental health issues, all of which I have experienced first hand or seen frequently.

Exact words? I think you have a point - in some cases. But the general sense of the words? That's a different matter altogether. If you dare to accept ANY history AT ALL as true, then you must accept the general sense of what is reported as having been said. From there it is a short step to events. You can only reject them out of hand if you have an unreasoning dogma AGAINST them possibly - ever - happening. Which puts you in the place of the unreasoning person and the person who accepts the evidence of their senses or of authority that they trust as more reasonable.

I believe the writers of the Bible in the same way I believe Neale Donald Walsch. I don't believe he was writing "WHY! WHY!" out of frustration, and the pen in his hand began writing the words of God in response. I believe he did what he could to make sense of all that happened in his life, and in the world, and wrote of the answers he found and came up with in that particular format.

To believe the events of the Bible - to believe things that can't happen actually did, because of supernatural agents - I'd need a little evidence. I've never experienced anything that could remotely be confused for a miracle, and I've never heard anyone describe any miracle they'd experienced that was at all convincing.

Here the thing that leaps out at me is that you write as if there were not a whole slew of events described in the Bible that historians agree actually happened. From the fall of the Assyrian state to Roman-occupied Jerusalem, Scripture is full of historical events that are agreed upon and confirmed. Mythology does not weave itself into historical record. It is prehistorical at best. What we have with Scripture is miraculous events described on a background of actual historical events. This strange fact does not in itself prove the miraculous, but it casts enormous doubt on the idea that the events described were simply made up.

It doesn't cast enormous doubt on the idea in my mind. It only reaffirms my observations that many people very badly want to believe in the supernatural. How many people died in Japan recently? Certainly a verifiable event. How easy is it to claim to have seen someone who had been submerged, pinned under debris, for an hour living and talking when the waters receded?

Now if you are speaking specifically of miracles, I still think Lewis's "Miracles" the best response. A person with a dogma that miracles CANNOT be will never see them, no matter what evidence is offered, for the dogma denies the evidence from the beginning.

Rubbish. Show me a miracle, and we'll see what I think of it. That "You wouldn't believe it even if you saw it" doesn't hold any water when you can't show it to me.

I myself have experienced events which may be best classified as positive answer to prayer rather than miracle, although their improbable nature made them seem quite like miracles. If I did not believe in supernatural intervention, I COULD explain them naturally, although with a significant order of improbability. But being able to accept the supernatural, I find that more probable than the improbable explanations that natural explanations would require.

So how does it work? Does God give positive answers to those who believe and pray sufficiently and/or correctly? "God answered our prayers!" By letting someone live who was going to die? The Plan changed? And when the person does die, despite that same prayer? "*chuckle* God doesn't change His Plan just because we asked nicely."

[Hashi Lebwohl]

So how does it work? Does God give positive answers to those who believe and pray sufficiently and/or correctly? "God answered our prayers!" By letting someone live who was going to die? The Plan changed? And when the person does die, despite that same prayer? "*chuckle* God doesn't change His Plan just because we asked nicely."

Sadly, most prayers are offered up from a short-term, moderately self-centered, human perspective.
"Please don't let my grandmother die from cancer." It is good that you are thinking about your grandmother, but are you wanting her to stick around simply because you can't bear the thought of letting go of her?
"Please let me get that job." Okay, you probably do need the job but that still serves to fulfill your needs.
"Please heal my neighbor's little girl from the disease she is suffering." Not a bad request--it certainly isn't self-centered--but maybe through that little girl being in the hospital some other greater good will happen.

Most people don't pray for what they really need--the wisdom to accept God's Will, however that might turn out.

On the flipside, I've never experienced, or known anyone who's experienced, anything that smacks even slightly of the supernatural. The explanation for the miracles you believe took place might be actual miracles, the existence of which can't be supported; or they might be errors of human judgement, misunderstandings, lies, or mental health issues, all of which I have experienced first hand or seen frequently.

How weird--I've never experienced anything "supernatural", either. The really interesting thing is this: you don't have to have a supernatural event happen to you in order to believe. In fact, believing without such an event takes a greater leap of faith.

In fact, this is how I answer the question "why doesn't God do things these days like parting an ocean, raising the dead, or blocking out the Sun when the events for a solar eclipse are not present?". It is because the expectation is higher these days. The ideas Christ taught were radical in his time, so people had to be shown. The message isn't "new" to us, so we are expected to choose: believe without seeing or don't.

Note that I don't expect you to do one or the other. As I have noted many times I only present information; I do not try to tell you what to do with that information.

[Loredoctor]

How weird--I've never experienced anything "supernatural", either. The really interesting thing is this: you don't have to have a supernatural event happen to you in order to believe. In fact, believing without such an event takes a greater leap of faith.

At least you're honest about it.

[Fist and Faith]

So how does it work? Does God give positive answers to those who believe and pray sufficiently and/or correctly? "God answered our prayers!" By letting someone live who was going to die? The Plan changed? And when the person does die, despite that same prayer? "*chuckle* God doesn't change His Plan just because we asked nicely."

Sadly, most prayers are offered up from a short-term, moderately self-centered, human perspective.
"Please don't let my grandmother die from cancer." It is good that you are thinking about your grandmother, but are you wanting her to stick around simply because you can't bear the thought of letting go of her?
"Please let me get that job." Okay, you probably do need the job but that still serves to fulfill your needs.
"Please heal my neighbor's little girl from the disease she is suffering." Not a bad request--it certainly isn't self-centered--but maybe through that little girl being in the hospital some other greater good will happen.

Most people don't pray for what they really need--the wisdom to accept God's Will, however that might turn out.

If God needs the child in the hospital, or if God needs the child to die, what are the prayers for? What purpose do they serve?

On the flipside, I've never experienced, or known anyone who's experienced, anything that smacks even slightly of the supernatural. The explanation for the miracles you believe took place might be actual miracles, the existence of which can't be supported; or they might be errors of human judgement, misunderstandings, lies, or mental health issues, all of which I have experienced first hand or seen frequently.

How weird--I've never experienced anything "supernatural", either. The really interesting thing is this: you don't have to have a supernatural event happen to you in order to believe. In fact, believing without such an event takes a greater leap of faith.

In fact, this is how I answer the question "why doesn't God do things these days like parting an ocean, raising the dead, or blocking out the Sun when the events for a solar eclipse are not present?". It is because the expectation is higher these days. The ideas Christ taught were radical in his time, so people had to be shown. The message isn't "new" to us, so we are expected to choose: believe without seeing or don't.

Note that I don't expect you to do one or the other. As I have noted many times I only present information; I do not try to tell you what to do with that information.

As Lore says. So what ever made you decide to believe that things that cannot happen do or did happen if you have never experienced one? What makes it more than a fantasy in an old book? I could suggest any number of things we could choose to believe without seeing. Why did you pick this particular one?

[rusmeister]

How weird--I've never experienced anything "supernatural", either. The really interesting thing is this: you don't have to have a supernatural event happen to you in order to believe. In fact, believing without such an event takes a greater leap of faith.

At least you're honest about it.

Hmmm. Who's being dishonest about it? I say the same thing. Is there some believer who isn't?

John 20:29:
Jesus said to him, "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

[rusmeister]

You argue my case. None of us can make any claim to have even slightly known anyone who died 2,000 years ago.

On the contrary. I argue the case that it is extremely probable that the claims made actually WERE witnessed, and believed by people who knew the character of the witnesses.

It's all quite a house of cards.
-The person who claims to have seen or experienced this or that could have been writing metaphorically about what s/he experienced, or contemplated. Those s/he told about it may have taken it as a real event or a metaphor, but those who they told are now farther removed from it.
-Even if s/he did believe something supernatural that didn't happen did happen those who knew that person cannot corroborate anything other than their assessment of that person's character. That they thought the person who reported it was honest does not come close to establishing that that person witnessed or experienced a miracle.
-Yes, there's the possibility of delusion. I imagine everybody knows what I mean when I say I've thought I heard someone say something, when, in fact, nobody was there. It happens. It happens to others much more frequently than it does to me. (Only a word or two several times in my life, and, coincidentally, the very words I was thinking at the time.) Some people develop mental illnesses later in life, so, one who was always of solid character is now in question.
-Lies. It could happen. Maybe one or another of the Bible's miracles were "witnessed" by someone who was feeling left out. Was every miracle in the Bible witnessed by someone who several people knew to be of unimpeachable character? Or is it possible that any of those people would have been willing to go along with the story for some reason?

That's just a few of the easiest problems I have with assuming a miracle witnessed 2,000 years ago actually happened.

On the flipside, I've never experienced, or known anyone who's experienced, anything that smacks even slightly of the supernatural. The explanation for the miracles you believe took place might be actual miracles, the existence of which can't be supported; or they might be errors of human judgement, misunderstandings, lies, or mental health issues, all of which I have experienced first hand or seen frequently.

I believe the writers of the Bible in the same way I believe Neale Donald Walsch. I don't believe he was writing "WHY! WHY!" out of frustration, and the pen in his hand began writing the words of God in response. I believe he did what he could to make sense of all that happened in his life, and in the world, and wrote of the answers he found and came up with in that particular format.

To believe the events of the Bible - to believe things that can't happen actually did, because of supernatural agents - I'd need a little evidence. I've never experienced anything that could remotely be confused for a miracle, and I've never heard anyone describe any miracle they'd experienced that was at all convincing.

Here the thing that leaps out at me is that you write as if there were not a whole slew of events described in the Bible that historians agree actually happened. From the fall of the Assyrian state to Roman-occupied Jerusalem, Scripture is full of historical events that are agreed upon and confirmed. Mythology does not weave itself into historical record. It is prehistorical at best. What we have with Scripture is miraculous events described on a background of actual historical events. This strange fact does not in itself prove the miraculous, but it casts enormous doubt on the idea that the events described were simply made up.

It doesn't cast enormous doubt on the idea in my mind. It only reaffirms my observations that many people very badly want to believe in the supernatural. How many people died in Japan recently? Certainly a verifiable event. How easy is it to claim to have seen someone who had been submerged, pinned under debris, for an hour living and talking when the waters receded?

Now if you are speaking specifically of miracles, I still think Lewis's "Miracles" the best response. A person with a dogma that miracles CANNOT be will never see them, no matter what evidence is offered, for the dogma denies the evidence from the beginning.

Rubbish. Show me a miracle, and we'll see what I think of it. That "You wouldn't believe it even if you saw it" doesn't hold any water when you can't show it to me.

I myself have experienced events which may be best classified as positive answer to prayer rather than miracle, although their improbable nature made them seem quite like miracles. If I did not believe in supernatural intervention, I COULD explain them naturally, although with a significant order of improbability. But being able to accept the supernatural, I find that more probable than the improbable explanations that natural explanations would require.

So how does it work? Does God give positive answers to those who believe and pray sufficiently and/or correctly? "God answered our prayers!" By letting someone live who was going to die? The Plan changed? And when the person does die, despite that same prayer? "*chuckle* God doesn't change His Plan just because we asked nicely."

First of all, the writers of the New Testament are quite clear that the vents they describe are NOT metaphorical!!! They are extremely explicit that they are reporting what their eyes have seen, ears have heard and hands have touched! Furthermore, the reported miracles did not even stop with Christ. They continued with the Apostles, so that a very large number of people witnessed them over time. That the first-century writings of Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch corroborate what Luke reported in the book of Acts indicates that it was not merely even assessments of character but the witnessing of inexplicable things that caused that new faith to spread like wildfire, and spread it did. Your attempts to deny, claiming lies, delusions, etc completely fail to explain that huge fact.

This all reminds of "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe", when the Professor questions the older two Pevensie children about Lucy. They express the typical skepticism about the possibility of a magic land in the wardrobe. (From the film version:)

Susan: It’s our sister sir, Lucy.
Prof: The weeping girl?
Susan: Yes sir, she’s upset.
Prof: Hence the weeping
Peter: We can handle it! (takes Susan’s sleeve)
Prof: Oh, I can see that.
Susan: She thinks she’s found a magical land in the upstairs wardrobe.
Prof: What did you say!?
Peter: The wardrobe upstairs, Lucy thinks she’s found a forest inside.
Prof: What was it like?
Susan: Like talking to a lunatic!
Prof: No, not her – the forest!
Peter: You….you actually believe her?
Prof: Well don’t you?
Susan: Well, logically it couldn’t possibly be there!
Prof: What do they teach at these schools?
Peter: Edmund said they were only pretending
Prof: And he’s the more truthful one is he?
Peter: No, this would be the first time.
Prof: Well then, if your sister isn’t lying and isn’t mad then logically we must assume that she is telling the truth.


This scene shows the perfect juxtaposition of logic and intuition. Susan, as is the case with most people, is so caught up in her own intuition that she fails to see that the only logical option here is that Lucy is telling the truth. The professor points that out very clearly, and incidentally, the professor presents a compelling proof to that effect. Here is the proof:

1. Lucy says that she and Edmund went to Narnia.

2. Edmund says that they didn’t go to Narnia.

3. Either Lucy or Edmund is lying.

4. It’s more likely that Edmund is lying.

5. Lucy isn’t crazy.

6. Lucy isn’t lying and Lucy isn’t crazy.

C. Lucy and Edmund did go to Narnia.

That’s logic.

But the skeptic, whose first principle is his own skepticism, will not be able to see the simple logic, because his dogma that miraculous events cannot possibly happen (even if he adds "unless I see them myself") blinds him to logic.

Well, you know me (inasmuch as that is possible). And I DO claim to have experienced events that 'smack of the supernatural'. You might know others, too - but if you have discounted their stories, then of course you won't have seen or heard of anything miraculous. If one claims open-mindedness, but holds a solid dogma of skepticism that denies miracles without direct personal experience of them will never be able to see any such thing or even taking in an argument in defense of miracles.

[Loredoctor]

Hmmm. Who's being dishonest about it? I say the same thing. Is there some believer who isn't?

I commented that he is being honest about his faith.

But the skeptic, whose first principle is his own skepticism, will not be able to see the simple logic, because his dogma that miraculous events cannot possibly happen (even if he adds "unless I see them myself") blinds him to logic.

So, you are saying that the system which questions the world is flawed because it blinds you to seeing your world - or that skepticism has 'blinders'. Yet, and this where your argument fails utterly, what is your system for discounting other religions? I've heard UFO cultists claim truth, as much as any Muslim or New Ager. What is it that doubts their claims? Why are you more correct?

If you think skepticism is problematic, then you obviously do not question other faiths and accept them blindly. There is nothing wrong with questioning the world or your own world view - which contradicts your perception of skepticism. In fact, my world view is just a bit more advanced than yours; the system you have for discounting other beliefs/gods goes one step further with me, for I just disbelieve in your god.

Give me skepticism any day than a person who accepts blindly their view and fails to question it.

[Fist and Faith]

First of all, the writers of the New Testament are quite clear that the vents they describe are NOT metaphorical!!!

The proof that the Bible is Truth is that the Bible says it is Truth. I like that system. Here we go:

All things written within this quote box are True. Absolutely, incontestably True.

So the other day I'm walking down the street, and this cloud comes down from the sky, and forms the face of a man. And it starts telling me about the Ancient Times, when beings of power walked the Earth. But it doesn't get far before the leaves pop off of the nearby trees, and form the face of a woman. And she starts telling cloud-man that he's got the story wrong. So I'm listening to them argue, trying to back away slowly, when...

All I'm saying is that there is reasonable doubt. We're talking about events from 2,000 years ago. They are:
-unverifiable.
-of a nature - a supernature - that we never experience.
-easily explained in many other possible ways - ingenuous and dis - that we do see every day.

If you do not see that there is reasonable doubt about their veracity, then you do not possess reason.

[High Lord Tolkien]

First of all, the writers of the New Testament are quite clear that the vents they describe are NOT metaphorical!!!

The proof that the Bible is Truth is that the Bible says it is Truth. I like that system. Here we go:

All things written within this quote box are True. Absolutely, incontestably True.

So the other day I'm walking down the street, and this cloud comes down from the sky, and forms the face of a man. And it starts telling me about the Ancient Times, when beings of power walked the Earth. But it doesn't get far before the leaves pop off of the nearby trees, and form the face of a woman. And she starts telling cloud-man that he's got the story wrong. So I'm listening to them argue, trying to back away slowly, when...

All I'm saying is that there is reasonable doubt. We're talking about events from 2,000 years ago. They are:
-unverifiable.
-of a nature - a supernature - that we never experience.
-easily explained in many other possible ways - ingenuous and dis - that we do see every day.

If you do not see that there is reasonable doubt about their veracity, then you do not possess reason.

[rusmeister]

Hmmm. Who's being dishonest about it? I say the same thing. Is there some believer who isn't?

I commented that he is being honest about his faith.

But the skeptic, whose first principle is his own skepticism, will not be able to see the simple logic, because his dogma that miraculous events cannot possibly happen (even if he adds "unless I see them myself") blinds him to logic.

So, you are saying that the system which questions the world is flawed because it blinds you to seeing your world - or that skepticism has 'blinders'. Yet, and this where your argument fails utterly, what is your system for discounting other religions? I've heard UFO cultists claim truth, as much as any Muslim or New Ager. What is it that doubts their claims? Why are you more correct?

If you think skepticism is problematic, then you obviously do not question other faiths and accept them blindly. There is nothing wrong with questioning the world or your own world view - which contradicts your perception of skepticism. In fact, my world view is just a bit more advanced than yours; the system you have for discounting other beliefs/gods goes one step further with me, for I just disbelieve in your god.

Give me skepticism any day than a person who accepts blindly their view and fails to question it.

No. I am saying that the system which refuses to accept answers is flawed. I have no problem with questioning. I have a problem with it as a permanent state, where one is to question, yet never find a definite answer.

Why am I more correct? That is a discussion for a month - or a lifetime. Unlike the New Ager or UFOer, there is a great deal more reason and tradition on my side, which most here really don't know anything about, except for tiny fragments which I have posted here.

Your quote is well known to me, and sounds clever, but quite weak as an intellectual justification for unbelief. The word "just" is rather key. As I have said here before, 'show me the God you 'just' don't believe in, because I probably don't, either. Assumptions of what the Orthodox understand of God runs 99% on western assumptions of what we all got as children from Baptists, Pentecostals, Episcopals, or fundamentalist whackoes.

You would no doubt still have objections. But some, at least, would be swept away. Anyway, the idea that I accept things "blindly" is just a false supposition. I tell you that I WAS blind, and have been made to see. I was agnostic, I worried about politics, I hated Bush, I blogged about it... and was blind about many other things in many other ways.

[rusmeister]

First of all, the writers of the New Testament are quite clear that the vents they describe are NOT metaphorical!!!

The proof that the Bible is Truth is that the Bible says it is Truth. I like that system. Here we go:

All things written within this quote box are True. Absolutely, incontestably True.

So the other day I'm walking down the street, and this cloud comes down from the sky, and forms the face of a man. And it starts telling me about the Ancient Times, when beings of power walked the Earth. But it doesn't get far before the leaves pop off of the nearby trees, and form the face of a woman. And she starts telling cloud-man that he's got the story wrong. So I'm listening to them argue, trying to back away slowly, when...

All I'm saying is that there is reasonable doubt. We're talking about events from 2,000 years ago. They are:
-unverifiable.
-of a nature - a supernature - that we never experience.
-easily explained in many other possible ways - ingenuous and dis - that we do see every day.

If you do not see that there is reasonable doubt about their veracity, then you do not possess reason.

I agree that there is reasonable doubt. I also say that there are reasonable counters to the reasonable doubts.

As to the analogy of the truth box, it loses in its gross oversimplification and reduction to the point of being completely unlike what IS claimed.

When you say that the events are unverifiable, we might as well say the same about ALL claimed events in history. So let's abolish the teaching of history as of unverifiable myths. And yet there is such a thing as historical scholarship, just as there is a thing called theology. I only have a scratch-the-surface familiarity with those things, but from that I am left with the strongest impression that everyone else knows absolutely nothing - or next to nothing - about them.

When you say that the events are easily explained in other ways, I most strongly disagree. Now I would agree that a few events here and there COULD be easily explained. But the particular concentration of them around a first-century Galilean, the effect of which was to cause his disciples to toss everything, follow him, and then burn with the news of what they had seen, which was powerful enough to convert the greatest empire of the ancient world, is NOT easily explained. It is easily dismissed, easily ignored, but the only 'easy' explanations are those for the ignorant and uneducated, especially the wilfully ignorant, who WILL not educate themselves where their schools utterly failed to educate them (and I would say purposefully so - which makes most of us victims of faulty thinking) but will still hold opinions, based on the extremely faulty and sketchy knowledge they DO have, most of all the limited understanding of a child's experience in some church or other.

[rusmeister]

First of all, the writers of the New Testament are quite clear that the events they describe are NOT metaphorical!!!

All I'm saying is that there is reasonable doubt. We're talking about events from 2,000 years ago. They are:
-unverifiable.
-of a nature - a supernature - that we never experience.
-easily explained in many other possible ways - ingenuous and dis - that we do see every day.

If you do not see that there is reasonable doubt about their veracity, then you do not possess reason.

There you go again, talking about doctrines that I don't hold or defend. Blast fundamental Baptists if you must (and maybe, in the right context, I'll join in with you), but it does zero to engage what I do believe.

If you read my previous post more carefully, you'll see that the first thing I did was to acknowledge reasonable doubt.

[I'm Murrin]

So, you are saying that the system which questions the world is flawed because it blinds you to seeing your world - or that skepticism has 'blinders'. Yet, and this where your argument fails utterly, what is your system for discounting other religions? I've heard UFO cultists claim truth, as much as any Muslim or New Ager. What is it that doubts their claims? Why are you more correct?

If you think skepticism is problematic, then you obviously do not question other faiths and accept them blindly. There is nothing wrong with questioning the world or your own world view - which contradicts your perception of skepticism. In fact, my world view is just a bit more advanced than yours; the system you have for discounting other beliefs/gods goes one step further with me, for I just disbelieve in your god.

Give me skepticism any day than a person who accepts blindly their view and fails to question it.

No. I am saying that the system which refuses to accept answers is flawed. I have no problem with questioning. I have a problem with it as a permanent state, where one is to question, yet never find a definite answer.

Why am I more correct? That is a discussion for a month - or a lifetime. Unlike the New Ager or UFOer, there is a great deal more reason and tradition on my side, which most here really don't know anything about, except for tiny fragments which I have posted here.

Your quote is well known to me, and sounds clever, but quite weak as an intellectual justification for unbelief. The word "just" is rather key. As I have said here before, 'show me the God you 'just' don't believe in, because I probably don't, either. Assumptions of what the Orthodox understand of God runs 99% on western assumptions of what we all got as children from Baptists, Pentecostals, Episcopals, or fundamentalist whackoes.

You would no doubt still have objections. But some, at least, would be swept away. Anyway, the idea that I accept things "blindly" is just a false supposition. I tell you that I WAS blind, and have been made to see. I was agnostic, I worried about politics, I hated Bush, I blogged about it... and was blind about many other things in many other ways.

Answer the question.

Answer the question.

[rusmeister]

So, you are saying that the system which questions the world is flawed because it blinds you to seeing your world - or that skepticism has 'blinders'. Yet, and this where your argument fails utterly, what is your system for discounting other religions? I've heard UFO cultists claim truth, as much as any Muslim or New Ager. What is it that doubts their claims? Why are you more correct?

If you think skepticism is problematic, then you obviously do not question other faiths and accept them blindly. There is nothing wrong with questioning the world or your own world view - which contradicts your perception of skepticism. In fact, my world view is just a bit more advanced than yours; the system you have for discounting other beliefs/gods goes one step further with me, for I just disbelieve in your god.

Give me skepticism any day than a person who accepts blindly their view and fails to question it.

No. I am saying that the system which refuses to accept answers is flawed. I have no problem with questioning. I have a problem with it as a permanent state, where one is to question, yet never find a definite answer.

Why am I more correct? That is a discussion for a month - or a lifetime. Unlike the New Ager or UFOer, there is a great deal more reason and tradition on my side, which most here really don't know anything about, except for tiny fragments which I have posted here.

Your quote is well known to me, and sounds clever, but quite weak as an intellectual justification for unbelief. The word "just" is rather key. As I have said here before, 'show me the God you 'just' don't believe in, because I probably don't, either. Assumptions of what the Orthodox understand of God runs 99% on western assumptions of what we all got as children from Baptists, Pentecostals, Episcopals, or fundamentalist whackoes.

You would no doubt still have objections. But some, at least, would be swept away. Anyway, the idea that I accept things "blindly" is just a false supposition. I tell you that I WAS blind, and have been made to see. I was agnostic, I worried about politics, I hated Bush, I blogged about it... and was blind about many other things in many other ways.

Answer the question.

Answer the question.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is risen from the dead. It's that simple, Murrin. It's amazing, it's not a normal or usual thing, it IS an astounding claim. But it IS the answer.

[Fist and Faith]

Nobody here doubts everything on a permanent basis, never believing we have found definite answers. The saying goes something along the lines of:
Just because something has always happened doesn't mean it always will happen.
But it's more a way of reminding us to keep an open mind. Some strange things happen, and, when they do, they must be fit into the body of knowledge. Nobody doubts that the sun will rise tomorrow; if I drop this book, it will fall to the floor; or that 2+2=4.

I'm quite sure I've found many answers, and that I've found the Answer. I don't have any doubts of what the universe has shown me my entire life. But I keep an open mind, and ask questions. Mind you, I no longer go out of my way to ask questions, as I did in days past. But if someone comes to me, as you have, I'll ask. As I have.

So how about some answers? We start from very different basic assumptions. Can the first uncaused thing in the chain be the universe, or must the first thing in the chain be a cause for the universe? Does human behavior indicate that people all feel the same about moral issues? We aren't going to agree on the axioms. So how about a different direction? Is Orthodoxy at least internally consistent? If so, I'd be willing to hear more about it. But if not, then why should I bother? So where's my ducks?


As for history, one book does not historical knowledge make. The Bible says there was a Roman Empire? Why should I believe that? Oh, you say there are other reasons to believe? Historical sources not related to the Bible? Ancient ruins in the appropriate places? A trail of languages? Hey, that is pretty convincing. The Bible also says someone rose from the dead? Why should I believe that?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

At least you're honest about it.

I do what I can.

If God needs the child in the hospital, or if God needs the child to die, what are the prayers for? What purpose do they serve?

Do you talk to people with whom you are in a relationship, such as your parents, children, spouse, or good friends? Yes? Well, when you are a Christian you are in a relationship with God so you talk with Him. Talking with Him is called "prayer".

As Lore says. So what ever made you decide to believe that things that cannot happen do or did happen if you have never experienced one? What makes it more than a fantasy in an old book? I could suggest any number of things we could choose to believe without seeing. Why did you pick this particular one?

Because what I believe makes sense to me. I exercised my Free Will and I chose. No other explanation is necessary.

Now...although I could try to address every point raised since my last post I am not going to do so. Instead, let me try to address the general issue at hand.

How can I believe things that are impossible to prove? By choice. I don't need proof to believe the things I believe are true just like people like Aliantha cannot prove to me that there is a Goddess. Nevertheless, I will not try to disuade her from her beliefs because, to her, they are true. Who am I to tell her she is wrong?

It is a matter of intellectual curiosity to me when people try to claim that they have found some archaeological evidence to prove that the Bible is literally true. Sure, I'll read the story but the very fact that people look for this kind of evidence is, to me, ridiculous. Scientific proof precludes faith--what is the point of believing in something if you try to turn around and prove it? Do I think science supports my belief in God? Yes, because to me the complexity and beauty of the universe highlights His handiwork. The fact that a hive of bees can minimally solve the "travelling salesman" problem that the most powerful supercomputers cannot points out the genius in His design. To other people, it is simply an interesting fact about bees.

I have said to people before that they should question everything all the time, including me. What makes you think I don't question things, too? I will hear someone say something at church that strikes me as "incorrect" at which point I will look into the matter myself and then reach a conclusion.

My intelligence and my conclusions have led me to where I am. You may still ask "why?" or even "how?". Again, my answer will remain "it is my choice to believe what I believe". Some of you may read my words and shake your head at what you consider to be my ignorance or unreasonable, illogical nonsense. Naturally, you are entitled to think this but it won't change my mind just like I cannot change any of your minds regardless of the words I choose. The nice thing about me, of course, is that I am not here to convince anyone of anything or change anyone's mind.

Even if I do not believe what someone else believes, I will not try to convince them that they are "wrong". To do so expresses only arrogance and, quite honestly, serves only to make them mad.

[I'm Murrin]

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is risen from the dead. It's that simple, Murrin. It's amazing, it's not a normal or usual thing, it IS an astounding claim. But it IS the answer.

Answer the question that was asked.

Yet, and this where your argument fails utterly, what is your system for discounting other religions? I've heard UFO cultists claim truth, as much as any Muslim or New Ager. What is it that doubts their claims? Why are you more correct?

[Fist and Faith]

Excellent post, Hashi.

If God needs the child in the hospital, or if God needs the child to die, what are the prayers for? What purpose do they serve?

Do you talk to people with whom you are in a relationship, such as your parents, children, spouse, or good friends? Yes? Well, when you are a Christian you are in a relationship with God so you talk with Him. Talking with Him is called "prayer".

Gotcha. I believe some people define it differently, but I actually like your definition.

As Lore says. So what ever made you decide to believe that things that cannot happen do or did happen if you have never experienced one? What makes it more than a fantasy in an old book? I could suggest any number of things we could choose to believe without seeing. Why did you pick this particular one?

Because what I believe makes sense to me. I exercised my Free Will and I chose. No other explanation is necessary.

Yeah, I was just curious if there was a particular thing, or moment, that made you choose what you chose. Cat Stevens' music always told me that he was searching for God. Then, he began reading the Qur'an, and was immediately drawn to it. The biggest moment was when he read the book of Joseph, and wept. "And I said, 'This is not the word of a man; this is God's words.'" Not saying anyone of any faith has such a moment. Just curious.

How can I believe things that are impossible to prove? By choice. I don't need proof to believe the things I believe are true just like people like Aliantha cannot prove to me that there is a Goddess. Nevertheless, I will not try to disuade her from her beliefs because, to her, they are true. Who am I to tell her she is wrong?

She can't prove it to me, either. Hehe. But, since she's not always telling me I'm wrong, I don't bother her.

It is a matter of intellectual curiosity to me when people try to claim that they have found some archaeological evidence to prove that the Bible is literally true. Sure, I'll read the story but the very fact that people look for this kind of evidence is, to me, ridiculous.

I think different people are different. I need evidence. There's no chance I'll ever believe anything without it. (Direct, personal experience would be evidence, btw. I couldn't demonstrate it to others, and wouldn't try. But I'd accept it for myself.) Maybe people looking for it are doing so hoping to find something for people like me?

Scientific proof precludes faith--what is the point of believing in something if you try to turn around and prove it?

There's a big difference between us. I've heard others say it, too. I can't imagine why anyone wants or needs to believe in something they can't prove.

Another aspect of this has been brought up a few times. Why can't I KNOW? Didn't Satan know with absolute certainty that God exists? Still, he rebelled. Knowing, I could still choose whether or not to have faith in God's plan, and mercy, and love.