Please rag on religion here, not in FrGamble

Quote: s2dbaker

If you want to speculate, then your question requires some clarification such as, what does "before" mean? Time is a measure of change. All change is measured by stuff made in the big bang. So is there even a "before"?

Wow. That's a concept that really makes ya think. Very cool.

Quote: HotBlonde

Theories are theories because there is no way to actually prove them.

You're confusing the coloquial use with the scientific use. A hypothetical postulate is a hypothesis, which needs to be tested and either proved or disproved. if it cannot be tested, it's not worht anything.

A theory is a set of rules describing a phenomenon, more or less. Among other things, theories make predictions which can also be tested. Einsntein's theories of relativity (there are two), for example, deal with conditions under extremes of gravity and speed. They've both made predictions which have been tested and found to be accurate.

Quote:

So... if all this religious stuff is true then why has it not been proven as true?

I've never received a satisfactory answer to that question. Only arguments and hints about evidence which never turns out to be available for examination.

Quote: Nareed

I've never received a satisfactory answer to that question. Only arguments and hints about evidence which never turns out to be available for examination.

There are just so many holes in any doctrine. Followers will overlook these things so that they can find security in believing they have a book of answers rather than giving in to the thought that we actually can't ever really know anything and being okay with that.

Quote: HotBlonde

So... if all this religious stuff is true then why has it not been proven as true?

Scientifically, you can only prove something true by disproving its opposite. Only in non-science settings (and often in the legal realm) does "prove" mean something other than absolute truth. Religion uses this "probative value" notion a lot, using various stories or events to "prove" something is true (like the divinity of Jesus). But the only way to prove, say, that Jesus was the Messiah would be to disprove the assertion that Jesus was NOT the Messiah, and that's impossible to do without resorting to circular (and thus, invalid) reasoning. Similarly, there's no way to disprove the assertion that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and is responsible for all we see and feel.

Once a statement falls outside the scientific realm of proof and disproof, you have to take it on faith. So when religion says "this is the truth", they don't mean "true" the same way the statement "All humans are mammals; I am human; therefore I am a mammal" is true. Any and all attempts to apply logic and rational reasoning to the tenets of religion -- any religion -- have invariably failed at some point due to axiomatic circularity. There is never a complete logical proof of any religious belief -- that's why it's a religious belief and not a scientific theory.

Quote: MathExtremist

So when religion says "this is the truth", they don't mean "true" the same way the statement "All humans are mammals; I am human; therefore I am a mammal" is true.

But I think that's EXACTLY what religious devotees are trying to say.

Quote: HotBlonde

There are just so many holes in any doctrine. Followers will overlook these things so that they can find security in believing they have a book of answers rather than giving in to the thought that we actually can't ever really know anything and being okay with that.

Followers of a religioon will accept the loopholes and contradictions, explainign them away as "God moves in mysterious ways," or "it makes sense to God," or something like that.

But what do you eman we can't know anything? We know plenty. It's likely we won't ever know everything, and certain that no one person can know everything. BUt do we know anything? Absolutely we do.

Quote: HotBlonde

But I think that's EXACTLY what religious devotees are trying to say.

You are correct, and those devotees are wrong to equate a religious truth with a scientific one, but that hasn't ever stopped anyone.

"Thinking is skilled work. It is not true that we are naturally endowed with the ability to think clearly and logically - without learning how, or without practicing."
-- Alfred Mander

Quote: Nareed

What makes you think the entire resurrection wasn't just woven out of thin air?

May be. It's evident even today that developing a core group of fervent rock solid believers in almost any wacko thing is possible. We generally only hear about such groups when they get into the news for some reason.

It's not amazing nor amazing proof, nor amazing anything that something takes hold once in awhile and can then maintain and even evolve through the distance of history from lack of firm examination. One can rarely shake the confidence of converts of modern day cults out of their delusions, so what hope is there for these long term and much bigger groups?

Quote: Nareed

But what do you eman we can't know anything? We know plenty. It's likely we won't ever know everything, and certain that no one person can know everything. BUt do we know anything? Absolutely we do.

We think we really KNOW things but do we really? If I'm in my bedroom and I want to go into the living room can I be absolutely certain that the living room really exists and is there on the other side of the door? Can I be absoulutely certain that Abraham Lincoln existed? There's a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999+% chance that he did but can I ABSOLUTELY know that?

I just read this and it reminded me of our current discussions: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

If you take certain items as axoimatic, yes. However, then we are down to arguing axioms, and at that point, I normally decide philosophy is too hard and try something easier, like self-direct brain surgery or convincing Canuck's fans that Roberto Luongo isn't the best goal tender in ice hockey.

But if people can agree on a set of axioms, things can be very interesting.

Quote: HotBlonde

We think we really KNOW things but do we really? If I'm in my bedroom and I want to go into the living room can I be absolutely certain that the living room really exists and is there on the other side of the door?

Not knowing the layout of your place, I can't say. But I do know if I'm at my desk and want to go to the kitchen, it's certain the kitchen is right through the door to my left. There's no doubt about it. If I ever step into the kitchen and find something else, I'll let you know.

Quote:

Can I be absoulutely certain that Abraham Lincoln existed? There's a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999+% chance that he did but can I ABSOLUTELY know that?

Yes, because he's been described by a multitude of sources, there are photographs of him, records of him, and not too long ago there were even people alive who knew him.

Look, you can ask the same question of everyone in history, myth and the present. if you do, you'll exhaust yourself and never be avble to do anything else. You can also ask the same question about everything as well. But what's the point? Sure, some things you cannot know of your own first-hand expereince. And so? You have enough first-hand experience to be able to judge what you learn about second- or third-hand.

So when you read about Lincoln or Neapoleon, or Lee or Wellington for that matter, you know how much to trust what you read. That doesn't amke what you know any less certain.

Quote:

I just read this and it reminded me of our current discussions: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

Certainly. Aristotle means you can evaluate and judge a thought without accepting. Indeed, you should do that before accepting or rejecting it.

Quote: Nareed

But I do know if I'm at my desk and want to go to the kitchen, it's certain the kitchen is right through the door to my left. There's no doubt about it. If I ever step into the kitchen and find something else, I'll let you know.

So there's no possibility that one day you could go to walk in there, certain that the kitchen is there as it's always been, and instead now there's a gaping hole? Whether it be from the effects of an earthquake or a bombing or whatever, are you saying there is no other possibility other than that the kitchen will actually be there?

Quote: Nareed

Yes, because he's been described by a multitude of sources, there are photographs of him, records of him, and not too long ago there were even people alive who knew him.

And YOU choose to believe this. It doesn't matter whether it actually happened or not. You say yes with such certainty but we're overlooking the fact that there is nothing that is 100% certain. Look at the movie The Truman Show. Although it is a fictional story, Truman lived his life thinking it was what he percieved it to be when in actuality it wasn't what he thought it was at all.

Quote: Nareed

Look, you can ask the same question of everyone in history, myth and the present. if you do, you'll exhaust yourself and never be avble to do anything else. You can also ask the same question about everything as well. But what's the point? Sure, some things you cannot know of your own first-hand expereince. And so? You have enough first-hand experience to be able to judge what you learn about second- or third-hand.

That would be entirely exhausting, you're right. But if there is a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001+% chance that something could be different than what it's percieved as then you have to admit there is no way we can ever be absolutely (100%) sure of anything.

Byron Katie says that no thought is true. The wonderful and freeing thing about this is that we can question the thoughts that we've held on to all our lives as fact (sex can actually be "bad", my mother should love me, we're supposed to be nice to one another, etc.) and come out on the other end realizing that what we thought we knew is really just a bunch of concepts that we've attached to and that's it. They have no value.

Katie also says that if we completely and stubbornly eliminate any possibility that something could actually not be true we have now closed our minds and simultaneouly closed our hearts.

Look at the case of being transgendered, if you don't mind. There can be people who say that it is wrong, perverted, not in accordance with God's plan, etc., etc. Is that true? Then there are others who say it is fine, there's nothing wrong with it, transgendered individuals are just following their hearts, etc. But the thing with opposing opinions is that no one is right, both are wrong. It is what it is without words to describe what it is, plain and simple. It's only us as humans who attach words and meanings to things. Take that away and you see what exists just simply exists.

Quote: HotBlonde

So there's no possibility that one day you could go to walk in there, certain that the kitchen is there as it's always been, and instead now there's a gaping hole? Whether it be from the effects of an earthquake or a bombing or whatever, are you saying there is no other possibility other than that the kitchen will actually be there?

I suppose something could ahppen to the kitchen, yes. But absent things like earthquakes, bombing, or even remodelling, I'm certain the kitchen will be there.

Quote:

And YOU choose to believe this. It doesn't matter whether it actually happened or not. You say yes with such certainty but we're overlooking the fact that there is nothing that is 100% certain.

Maybe you can't be certain of some thign you did not learna bout first-hand. But it doens't matter, so long as you can be reasonably certain. It's prefferable than to say "there's a remote chance abe Lincoln was a cannibalistic, alien deity from antoher dimension, so maybe we should view all his words with suspicion, or maybe there was no civil war at all, but the alien god Lincoln used hispowers to persuade evruone there was; and of course he ate all the fallen soldiers and the parts removed from the "wounded" ones"

What benefit is there to that?

Quote:

Look at the movie The Truman Show. Although it is a fictional story, Truman lived his life thinking it was what he percieved it to be when in actuality it wasn't what he thought it was at all.

Great movie. People can be fooled, no question. Even so, if you as a spectator do not suspend your disbelief, won't buy the fact that Truman was fooled for so long.

Quote:

Byron Katie says that no thought is true. The wonderful and freeing thing about this is that we can question the thoughts that we've held on to all our lives as fact (sex can actually be "bad", my mother should love me, we're supposed to be nice to one another, etc.) and come out on the other end realizing that what we thought we knew is really just a bunch of concepts that we've attached to and that's it. They have no value.

I fail to see any value in thinking that way, sorry.

To be sure you can know things that are wrong, call it "wrong knowing." For instance, until the age of six or so I thought the Galaxy was the Universe, with the Sun at the center and the stars right there just past the farthest planets. Regardless of how that's explained, I mean why I thought that, I did learn better. But having had wrong knowledge doesn't mean I can't be certain the Galaxy is part of the Universe, the Sun orbits well away from the center and the stars are very far away and are sunlike in nature.

Quote:

Look at the case of being transgendered, if you don't mind. There can be people who say that it is wrong, perverted, not in accordance with God's plan, etc., etc. Is that true? Then there are others who say it is fine, there's nothing wrong with it, transgendered individuals are just following their hearts, etc. But the thing with opposing opinions is that no one is right, both are wrong.

Opinions are a mix of fact and value judgments. Let's take it as given that Ronald Reagan had a hand in ending the Cold War and contributed to the fall of Communism in Europe and Asia. As a result there will be people who love Reagan for that, and people who hate him for it. Which set is right? Neither. Their opinions, that is to say their judgment of Reagan, depend on their values.

On the other hand, you sometimes find common ground between peopl who hold opposing views. For example, many Christians will maintain that promiscuity is wrong because sex is bad. That anything relating to sex is bad, and to use sex for anything other than procreation is wrong. There are people, though, like me, who will tell you promiscuity is bad because sex is good. Sex is an expression of love, of the highest personal values between two people. To give it away freely to any one and everyone without passion between them and you cheapens it and the people involved.

Wht you need here is a standard against which to measure sex, communism, liberty, etc as being good or bad. It would seem you object more to judging things as to their degrees of value than to knowing or not knowing for certain that the kitchen exists.

Quote: Nareed

Yes, because he's been described by a multitude of sources, there are photographs of him, records of him, and not too long ago there were even people alive who knew him.

Look, you can ask the same question of everyone in history, myth and the present. if you do, you'll exhaust yourself and never be avble to do anything else. You can also ask the same question about everything as well. But what's the point? Sure, some things you cannot know of your own first-hand expereince. And so? You have enough first-hand experience to be able to judge what you learn about second- or third-hand.

It does my heart good to hear you using this argument for the existence of Abe Lincoln, because this is what I was trying to demonstrate in concern to the existence of God and more specifically Jesus Christ in many previous posts. Your quote about things you cannot know of your own first-hand experience and our need to depend on credible witnesses who did have first hand experience is beautiful!

Billions more people attest to have had experiences of God or the divine than can attest to knowing honest Abe. When it comes to Jesus Christ there are records of Him and people alive who knew him and spread the word about Him. Alas there is no photographs back then so if that is the proof you need you are outta luck and so is your belief that anyone existed before 1826. Because no one is attested to more, talked about more, nor debated about more than Jesus Christ in the history of the world. Do you really think that the entire world would have been changed by a made up story about a carpenter who died by crucifixion and rose from the dead? How long would that fly with the people who knew him, placed guards at his tomb, and desperately wanted to keep the news about Him quiet. Much less how could that news be accepted and believed by Romans and other pagans whose images and understanding of God is radically different than a God who becomes one of us in a humble stable in Bethlehem. It is certainly amazing to say the least that the Gospel spread so quickly, powerfully, and completely if it was not true.

:popcorn:

A lie can travel around the world, while the truth is still putting on its shoes - Mark Twain

Quote: FrGamble

It is certainly amazing to say the least that the Gospel spread so quickly, powerfully, and completely if it was not true.

Why? The persistent theme of a sun-god carrying the orb of flames across the sky in a chariot or boat was just as pervasive in B.C.E. times, yet that wasn't true. Truth has very little to do with the speed at which a rumor spreads, after all, but everyone loves a juicy story -- and everyone loves to elaborate on it by exaggerating details or putting themselves in the picture.

And you're making a poor argument given the facts on the ground. Islam is spreading more quickly, powerfully, and completely than Christianity. Do you conclude that its gospel is more true than Christianity's gospel?

Quote: MathExtremist

Why? The persistent theme of a sun-god carrying the orb of flames across the sky in a chariot or boat was just as pervasive in B.C.E. times, yet that wasn't true. Truth has very little to do with the speed at which a rumor spreads, after all, but everyone loves a juicy story -- and everyone loves to elaborate on it by exaggerating details or putting themselves in the picture.

And you're making a poor argument given the facts on the ground. Islam is spreading more quickly, powerfully, and completely than Christianity. Do you conclude that its gospel is more true than Christianity's gospel?

I think the staying power of Christianity is also something to marvel at. My argument is that the spread and continuing hold of Christianity around the globe is unique and quite extraordinary. I think it speaks something about its truthfulness and value. The stories about a sun-god that prepare the way and have now fallen to the wayside is a good example of how quickly falsehood retreats when the light of truth shines upon it.

You raise a interesting point about Islam, while it has not nearly spread as completely as Christianity did through its nearly 1400 years there is no doubt that it is spreading powerfully and quite quickly now a days. I wonder if some of this is related to it's claim to further the revelation of Jesus, who is regarded as a great prophet and whose mother Mary is honored almost as much as in my own faith. There could be other reasons as well, including political and economic reasons, for its current growth but there was certainly not an explosion of growth over the whole world that could compare with Christianity that occurred after Muhammad's death in 632 AD.

Quote: Face

:popcorn:

Funny you should say that. I was going to suggest selling tickets to some of these threads :)

Quote: FrGamble

I think the staying power of Christianity is also something to marvel at. My argument is that the spread and continuing hold of Christianity around the globe is unique and quite extraordinary. .

St Nicholas apparently turned people from meat pies, back into the living. No wonder Santa a has big separate following, absent Jesus. Seems like a bigger miracle than plain old rising from the dead.

Quote: FrGamble

I think the staying power of Christianity is also something to marvel at. My argument is that the spread and continuing hold of Christianity around the globe is unique and quite extraordinary. I think it speaks something about its truthfulness and value. The stories about a sun-god that prepare the way and have now fallen to the wayside is a good example of how quickly falsehood retreats when the light of truth shines upon it.

Well, slow down a bit. The sun-god mythos was thousands of years old before it fell out of favor, and it is scientifically disprovable that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Notwithstanding, Galileo, the major proponent of heliocentrism and one of the greatest scientific minds of his time, was branded a heretic (by your Church). But the larger point is that the sun-god theory is disprovable. The New Testament is not -- either you believe the accounts in the Gospels or you don't, but you can't prove them either way because they make no independently verifiable scientific claims (meaningful aspects of the faith that could be archaeologically or geologically verified, etc.). The Qu'ran is equivalent in that regard -- one cannot disprove the revelations in the Qu'ran either. If anything, I don't understand how one would rationally choose between the New Testament and the Qu'ran, given that both sets of documents contradict each other in important ways (e.g. Jesus was a divine part of the Trinity vs. Jesus was just another prophet of Allah). In other words, a true believer cannot simultaneously hold both the New Testament and the Qu'ran as true -- therefore one must be false -- but neither has quickly retreated in view of the other. Indeed, the bidirectional criticisms between Christianity and Islam are a fascinating study in and of themselves. Islam denies the Incarnation, Christianity denies the primacy of Islam, Islam denies Original Sin, Christianity denies the Islamic tenet of Biblical corruption, etc.

Quote: FrGamble

It does my heart good to hear you using this argument for the existence of Abe Lincoln, because this is what I was trying to demonstrate in concern to the existence of God and more specifically Jesus Christ in many previous posts. Your quote about things you cannot know of your own first-hand experience and our need to depend on credible witnesses who did have first hand experience is beautiful!

Thanks.

You're very persistent. I'll give you that. it's a compliment. Persistence is a trait I much admire.

However, there are times when persistence can be a bad thing. Like when the gambler persists with a system hoping, or knowing, it will pay off eventually. No amount of persistence will make a negative expectation game pay off, as you and I know but the faithful gambler doesn't. In this analogy I'm the house and you're the gambler, I'm afraid.

Let's take Lincoln, as he's a very good example. I don't know much about the man, but what I know is consistent with the actions common to human beings. True, he was perhaps more courageous and more noble than is common for politicians, but such traits are not unheard of in politicians and certainly not in regular people.

Now, no one claims, say, that Lincoln freed the slaves with a miracle, or that he smote the Confederate armies with a mighty thunderbolt, or that he rose from the dead after being gunned down by Boothe. You get where I'm going. if there were a group of devoted followers, call them the Lincolni (with apologies to J. Michael Straczynski*) who claimed such things, and more, I wouldn't believe them. No matter how devoted they were or how much they swore, on a stack of Bibles if you want, that they have experienced the Great Emancipator in their hearts.

I would dismiss their claims as faith. I might demand evidence, too. The poor Lincolni wouldn't much care for me. I'd still believe Lincoln existed, and he was the president of the USA at the time, and that he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and the he preached the sermon at Gettysburg (if I may take some poetic license), and I would have my opinions on the man, too.

As I've said before, there is no doubt a man named Jesus did exist around the time the Bible claims he did. There are independent sources. I'm willing to believe he did many of the actions ascribed to him, minus the miracles he's supposed to have worked (he might have used what we would call stage magic techniques these days to appear to work some kind of miracles, but that's impossible to say; magicians rarely reveal their tricks), and I'm willing to believe he said many of the things he's supposed to have said, or words that were close enough in meaning.

Quote:

Billions more people attest to have had experiences of God or the divine than can attest to knowing honest Abe.

Maybe. And billions more can attest to having experienced ghosts, goblins, faeries, assorted spirits, poltergeists, etc etc. give it time, and you'll have billions attesting to anal probing on a spaceship by little grey aliens with big eyes, too.

Quote:

Do you really think that the entire world would have been changed by a made up story about a carpenter who died by crucifixion and rose from the dead?

No need to speculate: the world has been changed by a made up story about a carpenter who was executed and is claimed to have risen from his grave.

It's no more unbelievable than to think that, say, the world could be changed by a couple of misguided German philosophers with a radical agenda and a deep misunderstanding of economics.

Quote:

How long would that fly with the people who knew him, placed guards at his tomb, and desperately wanted to keep the news about Him quiet.

Oh, but that gives them an incentive to invent the resurrection story! Who'd follow a god, or a man claiming to be the son of god and god (or however that works), if mere mortal Roman soldiers could easily humiliate and kill him? I'm willing to bet they expected Jesus to free himself and strike the Romans down. It's too bad for them that Houdini was born many centuries later, or perhaps not so bad.

Quote:

Much less how could that news be accepted and believed by Romans and other pagans whose images and understanding of God is radically different than a God who becomes one of us in a humble stable in Bethlehem.

Please? the Romans believed in gods that were very human. For all purposes the Roman gods are Greek gods renamed. They fight among themselves, are vain, seduce men and women, etc, and they have histories of not dying or of coming back from being killed (the gods only, not the Heroes or mere heroic mortals). Of course those Romans receptive to Jesus' message would eat his story with a big spoon.

It would be a lot more believable than the contemporary Jewish belief in an invisible, intangible god who remains aloof from human affairs, except when he needs to strike down someone. Not to mention that he also lays down onerous rules which are nearly impossible to follow, not if you also want to have a life.

But we've been over this before.

Anyway, you're welcome to keep trying, if you don't mind the 100% house advantage. I don't even give out comps.

* Sorry for the obscure reference. It involves an episode of Babylon 5 where someone makes up an alien official with the unlikely name of Abramo Lincolni.

Boy, it's hard keeping up with these threads over the last day or two.

I could go on and on commenting on everything that strikes me, but for now I'd just like to address this:

Quote: FrGamble

Because no one is attested to more, talked about more, nor debated about more than Jesus Christ in the history of the world. Do you really think that the entire world would have been changed by a made up story about a carpenter who died by crucifixion and rose from the dead?

You have to realize that the phenomenon that is Jesus is not simply cuz the story of his existence has carried through all this time. The reason he is as talked about and discussed as much as he is has a lot if not everything to do with the fact that his story comes with the threat that IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN HIM YOU WILL BURN IN HELL FOR ALL OF ETERNITY. What could be a worse punishment? Who wouldn't be scared sh**less over this? So everyone at some point in life hears this story and has to decide whether they will buy into the bull crap or dismiss it and take the chance that it's just some made up story that's been passed along through thousands of years fueled by fear.

So this story grabs people by the balls. Believe that this is true or suffer.

Quote: HotBlonde

....the fact that his story comes with the threat that IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN HIM YOU WILL BURN IN HELL FOR ALL OF ETERNITY. What could be a worse punishment? Who wouldn't be scared sh**less over this?

The weak-minded, easily-duped sheeple, that's who.

Quote: Nareed

Now, no one claims, say, that Lincoln freed the slaves with a miracle, or that he smote the Confederate armies with a mighty thunderbolt, or that he rose from the dead after being gunned down by Boothe. You get where I'm going. if there were a group of devoted followers, call them the Lincolni (with apologies to J. Michael Straczynski*) who claimed such things, and more, I wouldn't believe them. No matter how devoted they were or how much they swore, on a stack of Bibles if you want, that they have experienced the Great Emancipator in their hearts.

I would dismiss their claims as faith. I might demand evidence, too. The poor Lincolni wouldn't much care for me. I'd still believe Lincoln existed, and he was the president of the USA at the time, and that he issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and the he preached the sermon at Gettysburg (if I may take some poetic license), and I would have my opinions on the man, too.

I know you don't like predictable arguments but you almost lead right into one that forces us to wrestle with the fact that you only have a few opinions to choose from when it comes to Jesus. Unlike the good old honest Abe, Christ seems to force our hands in regards to what we believe about him and his followers. You either have to see him as a liar who knew He was not God yet he and his simple followers hatched an evil plan that tricked the whole world into believing he was the incarnate and resurrected Son of God, or you can see him as a crazy person who somehow got everybody to believe in Him, or finally the only truly logically choice in my opinion - that as amazing as it might be He was who He said He was and who others around the globe came to believe that Jesus was indeed the Savior of the World. While you are thinking about that answer I think we need to revisit exactly how radical the change that this man Jesus brought to the world, check out this famous reflection:
One Solitary Life

He was born in an obscure village
The child of a peasant woman
He grew up in another obscure village
Where he worked in a carpenter shop
Until he was thirty

He never wrote a book
He never held an office
He never went to college
He never visited a big city
He never travelled more than two hundred miles
From the place where he was born
He did none of the things
Usually associated with greatness
He had no credentials but himself

He was only thirty three

His friends ran away
One of them denied him
He was turned over to his enemies
And went through the mockery of a trial
He was nailed to a cross between two thieves
While dying, his executioners gambled for his clothing
The only property he had on earth

When he was dead
He was laid in a borrowed grave
Through the pity of a friend

Nineteen centuries have come and gone
And today Jesus is the central figure of the human race
And the leader of mankind's progress
All the armies that have ever marched
All the navies that have ever sailed
All the parliaments that have ever sat
All the kings that ever reigned put together
Have not affected the life of mankind on earth
As powerfully as that one solitary life
(Dr. James Allen Francis, 1926)

Quote: zippyboy

The weak-minded, easily-duped sheeple, that's who.

That is a baaaaahd post, bro.

Quote: FrGamble

You either have to see him as a liar who knew He was not God yet he and his simple followers hatched an evil plan that tricked the whole world into believing he was the incarnate and resurrected Son of God, or you can see him as a crazy person who somehow got everybody to believe in Him,

I wouldn't go quite that far. A man can be delusional yet otherwise sane. But if it comes to that, there is ample evidence of liars, con-men and deluded and insane individuals. The existence of such people can be proven and it's well-documented. There's a saying, I'm told, in medical schools and teaching hospitals: "when you see hoof-prints, think of horses rather than zebras." In the case of Jesus, I'd amend it to say "When you see hoof-prints, think of horses or zebras rather than unicorns."

Quote:

or finally the only truly logically choice in my opinion - that as amazing as it might be He was who He said He was and who others around the globe came to believe that Jesus was indeed the Savior of the World.

I wouldn't call the only impossible alternative, the one backed by nothing but blind faith and contrary to all evidence, the logical one.

Quote: FrGamble

That is a baaaaahd post, bro.

Forgive me, Father.....for I know not what I do.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam ... bah, a pox upon all their houses!

Were that people all believed in nothing ... ah, what a world that would be.

Quote:

And today Jesus is the central figure of the human race

Proselytizing is annoying but effective. Stuff and ideas have spread the world round through sales techniques.

Plenty of people have bought crap they never knew they needed or wanted because of salespeople.

Quote: MrV

Christianity, Judaism, Islam ... bah, a pox upon all their houses!

Were that people all believed in nothing ... ah, what a world that would be.

Don't exclude those wacky Mormons with their God, Elohim from the planet Kolob.

Quote: s2dbaker

Don't exclude those wacky Mormons with their God, Elohim from the planet Kolob.

And can't forget Xenu, who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and killed them using hydrogen bombs. Tell me, Father, many otherwise rational people believe in the Church of Scientology–are they misguided? Is Scientology a legit religion or a wildly profitable global scam? Their stories are no less wacky than any other religion's, when first viewed objectively. In 2000 years, will the people believe Xenu actually existed simple because the stories were written down?

If you look at religion as a community institution, it does pretty well. Most Christian churches do very positive things for the community and have outreach programs that send people to impoverished areas of the world to spread the word of God (lightly) and help rebuild a community, provide food, school, etc (heavily). And yes, there are many bad eggs in the flock, and I think the Catholic church was absoultely terrible in its coverup of its scandals.

My view is that religion is very personal. I don't have any desire to convince anyone to believe what I think, as I have no valid basis for my argument, which is based on faith alone. I can't believe for a minute that one religion is right. If God does indeed exist, I believe that there has to be multiple paths to heaven. What bothers me about this is that stories are contradictory in nature. In the end, the point of all of the texts is to tell you how to live life so that you can have an afterlife.

When I read the text above, it seems very Santa-Clausish to me. Yet, for some reason, I can't believe that the 43+ years I have on this planet and the n years I have left is all that there is to my existence. To say that humans are special however, denies the same afterlife existence to other species in this universe. Do dolphins have heaven? Do cats and dogs? Cows? Primates? What about intelligent life forms on other planets? Or maybe perhaps we are unique in this universe and God did indeed create us (allow us to evolve) in His image.

My point is that I've kept my mind open to all possibilities, and at this point, I haven't seen any evidence disproving God to date.

Quote: boymimbo

My point is that I've kept my mind open to all possibilities, and at this point, I haven't seen any evidence disproving God to date.

I haven't seen any evidence disproving Rah, either. Or Tlaloc, or Thor, or the Great Maker.

Which leads me back to my eternal complaint: have you seen any evidence proving god?

Quote: zippyboy

Tell me, Father, many otherwise rational people believe in the Church of Scientology–are they misguided? Is Scientology a legit religion or a wildly profitable global scam? Their stories are no less wacky than any other religion's, when first viewed objectively. In 2000 years, will the people believe Xenu actually existed simple because the stories were written down?

I don't think it is my place to judge if Scientology is misguided or not. What I will say is that I think it is always good for people to think about the big questions in life and all different types of religion help us to do that. I used this analogy on another thread but I believe that there are many paths towards God, some are a bit more meandering and strange than others, I believe the one my faith tradition presents is the surest and safest way for obvious reasons. I even believe that those who don't believe but seriously think with an open mind about these big issues such as "why am I here?" and "what happens when I die?" are on a path towards God. It's the ones who aren't walking down any path, life's indifferent couch potatoes, that I am really worried about.

Will people believe in Xenu simply because it was written down? Maybe some will, most won't. I am thinking of the stock market. Investing seems very self regulating to me. If someone finds value in a company they invest in them, if not they trade it away. There might be a boom for a moment but time will tell if the company can stick around a while. There is no more secure investment than in Christianity. There is something obviously very different about it than every other religion in its appeal to the world, its stability, and the value that billions of people receive from it that leads to their investment. Call me for a prospectus.

Quote: Nareed

I haven't seen any evidence disproving Rah, either. Or Tlaloc, or Thor, or the Great Maker.

Which leads me back to my eternal complaint: have you seen any evidence proving god?

No. Your complaint is valid.

Quote: FrGamble

these big issues such as "why am I here?" and "what happens when I die?" are on a path towards God. It's the ones who aren't walking down any path, life's indifferent couch potatoes, that I am really worried about.

As to "why" you are here: better you should ask "What should I do with the time alotted to me on earth?"

The only "meaning" we have to our lives is that which we ascribe to ourselves.

Hey, just because we have consciousness, that doesn't somehow make us better than an amoeba or a blade of grass.

Quote: FrGamble

I don't think it is my place to judge if Scientology is misguided or not.

Let me, then. Scientology was started by a science fiction writer named L. Ron Hubbard. In the beginning it was a form of psychotherapy Mr. Hubbard intended to market and make money off. But such things are overseen and regulated by governments all voer the world, not to mention professional associations. They're also liable for taxes on income. Religions, now, are unregulated almost worldwide, and in many countries theya re automatically tax-exempt.

Do the math, as the expression has it: 1) fantastic story made up by a professional writer who dreams up strange worlds and aliens for a living, 2) a form of psychotherapy that woulnd't stand up to scrutiny, 3) let's make it a religion instead.

You may draw your own conclusions, of course, but I think it's pretty clear, isn't it?

BTW if a religion can catch on, today, when the public record makes its origins perfectly clear, how much easier would it have been in the past when communications weren't as good, records weren't as reliable, and a band of determined, and devoted, followers organized to spread a message?

Quote:

It's the ones who aren't walking down any path, life's indifferent couch potatoes, that I am really worried about.

What do you think of indifferent couch potatoes who accept your faith merely because they were raised in it, but blindly follow because they lack the interest or the will to even ask questions?

Quote: FrGamble

It does my heart good to hear you using this argument for the existence of Abe Lincoln, because this is what I was trying to demonstrate in concern to the existence of God and more specifically Jesus Christ in many previous posts.

As someone who was raised in a somewhat religious Jewish family, we were taught that there indeed was a man 2,000 years ago named Jesus, who was many of the things people say about him: Intelligent, religious, philosopher, teacher, etc.

He may have even been a prophet.

But when that prophecy gets elevated to make Jesus a messiah or outright deity, that's where many people draw the line and fail to make the leap, and even question the prophecy.

Pardon the expression, or maybe this is the absolutly correct expression to apply, but making that connection requires...
a leap of faith.

---

It is no surprise that the stories/gospel have spread. The story is both compelling and controversial, and people love a good controversy. But the mere spread and survival of the story is no greater miracle than the survival of the stories Homer wrote, centuries earlier.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

It is no surprise that the stories/gospel have spread. The story is both compelling and controversial, and people love a good controversy. But the mere spread and survival of the story is no greater miracle than the survival of the stories Homer wrote, centuries earlier.

You know, I was thinking about this concept last night. A primary difference between fantastical stories told about mythical creatures (zombies, vampires, ghosts, unicorns, fairies, genies, etc.) and fantastical stories told about religious figures is that there is a punishment for disbelieving in the latter. Nobody ever says "You're going to hell for not believing in unicorns or the Easter bunny". Christianity holds as one of its main tenets that denial of Jesus (at least, his divinity) means you're going to hell instead of heaven. Islam goes one step further and, in several countries, punishes apostasy by death.

Without further study, on first blush there seems to be a strong correlation between the severity of the "afterlife threat" promulgated by a religion and the number of its adherents. And Pascal's Wager would have been a meaningless proposition if there were no infinite negatives to disbelief in God.

Quote: FrGamble

It's the ones who aren't walking down any path, life's indifferent couch potatoes, that I am really worried about.

Why are you "really worried" about these people? Isn't it their business what they do with their lives?

Quote: HotBlonde

Why are you "really worried" about these people? Isn't it their business what they do with their lives?

That's the problem with large organised faiths, right there. They believe without God's grace, we are doomed to entire hell. God says we should lead others to him where possible. Plus we should care about our fellow man. If you care about our fellow man, we shouldn't want him to be doomed. So therefore they just CAN'T leave those people alone and not worry about those not on the same path to righteousness that they believe in.

It's all very parsimonious.

Or a great way of keeping a pyramid scheme going. Depending on how cynical you are feeling.

Quote: FrGamble

I even believe that those who don't believe but seriously think with an open mind about these big issues such as "why am I here?" and "what happens when I die?" are on a path towards God.

"Open mind" What does that mean? Or rather what does it seem to mean in this case.

It seems to mean that you could EITHER go to a brake mechanic or a faith brake healer (the miracle) for your car, or you could try to evaluate long term investments as legitimate businesses, or you could go to the guy that tells you without evidence that millions of his customers received 10 million dollars at the end of 20 years of investing with him even though he can't prove it ever happened even once (the afterlife).

Apparently the kind of "open mind" you need would be kind of scary to actually depend on for anything critical.

Quote: FrGamble

I even believe that those who don't believe but seriously think with an open mind about these big issues such as "why am I here?" and "what happens when I die?" are on a path towards God.

Why does one lead to the other? Specifically, what if someone believes that the answers to your big issue questions are "as a result of the wonderful beauty of random chance" and "my molecules disperse back into the world"?

Quote: rxwine

"Open mind" What does that mean? Or rather what does it seem to mean in this case.

Usually it means "accept any ideas no matter how outlandish, as valid, or even as true."

I prefer to say "keep an active mind," meaning to consider, judge and evaluate whatever ideas you come to find, including sometimes outlandish ones.

I've decided to switch sides for the moment.

On the question of evil and misery and why a god (or God if you wish) would let it exist.

Life, the suffering, the pain, torture no matter how terrible will seem as a little baby who cries and cries and is clearly truly miserable until the moment his mother lifts him up finally, and suddenly, instantly nearly, he stops crying, the pain and suffering is forgotten completely. The baby is transformed instantly as humans will be once they reach Heaven and God lifts them up. The baby no longer worries about what happened a moment ago.

Well, that's the best I can do. Maybe God likes lots of drama is why we suffer.

~

Free will and omniscience. Hmm.

The book of the world (Life?) is already written.

This is like God is George Lucas and all the films are already made of the Star Wars saga. He knows the beginning, middle and the end of sequels and prequels and yet there is free will for the characters - really?

Somehow it is claimed God watches our choices but doesn’t interfere. This is a bit like George Lucas pining over Darth Vader’s existence, on having gone to the darkside. The character is struggling with turning and God is fretting, yet God knows the film backwards and forwards. What does he think watching his own film? It’s going to be different?

It is written. It is filmed. What free will?

I don’t know any way to spin this one.

You assume that time is linear for God and that past/present/future have any meaning to someone omnipotent.

Oh I assume, not much.

Quote: rxwine

It is written. It is filmed. What free will?

If someone knows I am going to do something, how does it effect my free will to choose it? It seems to me that my freedom is not removed just because my choices are known to God.
I think it helps to remember that God is outside of time, where there is no suspense or succesion of seconds.