 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
In answer to your first qualm:
Is the Bible the word of God?
I believe the Bible is the Word of God because it rings true to me.
First of all I would like to ask you a few questions. |
OK.
quote:
Who do you think Jesus is? |
I think he was a religious leader and moral philosopher who lived about two millenia ago.
quote:
Who does he claim he is? |
The son of God.
quote:
The Bible has about 40 different authors. Yes I admit the Bible was written by men however the Bible reads as if it is written by one author. |
I'd have to wonder about that - I think some of the reason a lot of it sounds similar is because the translations occured at the same time.
quote:
As I have said, the bible was created over a period of about 3000 years, yet it all makes sense? |
Some people don't think it makes sense. For example, most of Leviticus does not.
quote:
The vast majority of these authors did not know each other. |
But they'd read the works of the previous authors.
quote:
I would like you to prove to me that the Bible isn't the word of God?! |
Why do I have to prove that it wasn't? Is there any evidence that it is?
I'd like you to prove to me that the Quran isn't the word of Allah.
quote:
Have you even read it? |
Yes.
[/q]Have you read all of it? Not just random quotes from various people?[/q]
No, but we've done a study of large sections of it in English class.
quote:
2. In answer to your objection to the historical accuracy of the four gospels.
First of all there are also non-christian sources about Jesus and what he did. Two of the most notable were Josephus (a jewish historian: See "The Works of Josephus") and Tacitus (A Roman Historian see "Annals"). Now onto the gospels: first of all if you had four eyewitnesses to a murder who all testified against the defendant then that defendant would go to jail. Next point: Matthew was a tax collector, another was a fisherman and another was a doctor (can't remember exactly who the others were). Infact I would argue that the disciples themselves were some of the biggest doubters of Christ and his claims until after the resurrection. In Luke 8:22-25 there is a massive storm on the water, Jesus and his disciples are in the boat, they fear for their lives so they wake up Jesus, he calms the storm and then rebukes his disciples, "Where is your faith?" He asked his disciples.
In fear and amazement they asked one another, "Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him". Other examples include the feeding of the 5000, even initially after Jesus' death the disciples did not believe it was true and till Jesus actually appeared to them and showed them his wounds. |
I don't doubt the existance of Jesus, just the veracity of the claims about his miracles, especially given that they appear to be scientifically impossible.
quote:
So the disciples were probably even more sceptical than you |
Nope, they accepted that God existed.
quote:
yet after his death they began a faith which now has approximately 1 billion followers. There are many references to historical places in the gospels which have been traced by historians and found to be true. |
The gospels have never been found to be true in all aspects, just in that Jesus existed, and he was crucified.
Outside sources confirm the Trojan War, but was Achilles actually invulnerable?
quote:
This probably ties in with your next objection about German soldier dying for a lie etc. For starters that is a pretty terrible connection you made considering these guys are from completely different contexts. Germany has just suffered a massive depression, the country has gone through hell and back, the people are crying out for a strong leader, I'm sure that many soldiers knew it was a lie but enjoyed it. Germany had the potential to profit out of WWII. On the other hand, the people who wrote the gospels had no motive for profit whatsoever. The only payment they received for their writing was execution and persecution. Furthermore Jesus appeared not only to the disciples after his death but to hundreds of people who were still alive when Paul was arguing this and they didn't contest that. I think it would require more faith to think that the writers of the gospels were deluded delinquints who were experiencing one massive hallucination and were hypnotised as there were just too many people who could verify that Jesus was raised from the dead. Too many people saw him after his death. Even in that small room where Jesus first appeared there was quite a substantial group of people. |
My point was that people can be deceived, and people can deceive themselves.
quote:
3. Concerning Suicide Cults
Was Jesus teaching Suicide? |
My point was that those people not only deceived themselves (something we both agree on), but they died for it. Thus, people can be willing to die for even false beliefss.
quote:
4. Jesus is God
I believe that this will also take care of your question LDiCesare. First of all lets see who Jesus by his actions. He is a man running out the middle east creating a whole new religious movement. |
So was Mohammed.
quote:
Healing the sick and raising the dead. This shows that he isn't your average human being, BUT people will say, "didn't he use that by God's authority?". Yes he did, he was God in human form. Now, he has been called, The Son of Man, The Son of God, The Word, The Light and he called himself "I AM" which is in reference to what God called himself when talking to Moses in the desert and burning bush.
In Luke 22:69-70 Jesus is being questioned by the Pharisees as to his identity:
"But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."
They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He replied, "You are right in saying I am."
Then in Mark 14:62-64 this scene is shown. Also in Matthew 26:64-65.
So Jesus alludes to being "The Son of Man" in Daniel Chapter 7:13-14. In John Chapter One it says, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darnkess, but the darkness has not understood it." Then it goes on and finally links this to Jesus. Read the chapter if you want the whole picture.
After all this, Jesus' claim to be God is made crystal clear in Hebrews Chapter 1:5-9
"For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your father?"
Or again,
"I will be his father,
and he will be my Son?"
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him.
...But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness:
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy"
If that isn't enough for you, then Isaiah prophecies the coming of a suffering servant who will bear our sins, read Isaiah 52:13- ch53:12.
Also Psalm 22 Alludes to Christ. In fact there are many more quotes in the Bible where Jesus claims to be God such as John10:31-39.
You may argue that Jesus is mad, yet he could rationally argue and debate with some of the nations top thinkers of the times. |
You haven't yet proved that the miracles occured - how can you cite them as evidence for his divinity? I would accept Jesus' divinity, if proof of his miracles was given.
quote:
NO i haven't read the koran, but I have read excerpts. I have read books on Islam and other religions and I can say without a doubt in my heart that Christianity sets itself apart from other faiths through the teachings of Jesus and The Bible. So we have four eyewitnesses recording that Jesus claims he is God. Some of the titles he is called such as Son of Man allude to prophetic dreams in the Old testament and concerning Son of God...Jesus is The Son of God and also God. Seems confusing, yes and that is because we are only human. But it is obvious that from the quotes I have told you, Jesus does also claim to be God. Now even without these eyewitnesses we still have the non-historical sources that outline who Jesus claimed to be and what he did, plus we have the other books of the New Testament. Plus we have the entire Old Testament which points to the coming of Christ. So this book written by 40 different people yet still reads the same is alot more significant than the tales of Gilgamesh. |
Because more people thought it was true, it must be true?
What if I got forty-one different people to write things that read the same and supported each other?
quote:
It is proven that there was a historical figure called Jesus of Nazareth. No historian denies that our dating system revolves around Jesus' life and no historian denies that Jesus existed as there is just too lmuch evidence (I can't include everything so I suggest you do your own reading as this is a life and death matter for you). So Jesus definately existed. Numerous accounts of who he claimed to be, he himself claimed he was God so where does that put you? Can you prove to me that all these people are wrong? That Jesus never existed? That he wasn't crucified? Sure the Pharoahs claimed to be gods but then they didn't do all the stuff Jesus did and they don't have such a massive following as Jesus does today. So why don't you prove to me that God doesn't exist? Prove to me that Jesus didn't die for our sins? Prove to me that The Bible isn't The Word of God? If you can do that then you will make me an unbeliever! lol. |
No one doubts Jesus' existance, or even the basics of the story. What I doubt are the miracles. There is no evidence, beyond what some people wrote. There is nothing more compelling about Christianity than about Islam - and Islam has a massive following as well. The fact that people believe something to be true, does not make it true. Otherwise, before people there would have been no God (ironically, this appears to be the case, that people created God in their own image  ).
quote:
Funnily enough some of the most adamant non-believers who set out to take down Christianity were converted. Such as Saul from Tarsus who later was called Paul and who wrote a substantial amount of Books that are now in the New Testament. He was a Pharisee and he hated Christians with a passion until Christ appeared to him and turned him. We're talking about someone who executed and tortured Christians for a living and got enjoyment out of it, and yet he became one of the most prolific writers of the new testament. Now that's a miracle. Are you going to try and argue to me that he was fooled? That he was hypnotised? I think that argument would requre more faith then my belief in the existence of God. |
Saul, however, was already religious. Once you have accepted the existence of God, it is not as much a leap to believe in the Son of God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:35
|
|
quote:
was Achilles actually invulnerable? |
Of course he wasn't. He was killed by an arrow. The real question is whether Paris shot it or Appollo, in the Paris version, Appollo guided the shot. The versions vary. Since there are several contradicting versions, then it must be true that Achilles was in fact killed by an arrow, and that Appollo was involved in it (either shooting or guiding the arrow).
Therefore, using BK's own argumentation, it is evident that Appollo exists. Therefrom, the whole Greek pantheon probably exists too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Black Knight84
Yes some don't, but then some do.  |
Some of us also believe in God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit also, which would make the simple answer "Jesus" inadequate. Frankly I looked around for an "Other" category and was dissapointed by its absence.
In my time I've found many who profess this "salvation by faith alone" use this belief as a cover for a variety of rather un-christian attitudes. As a kid (circa 1960) I got beat up by some of these "faithies" for calling them to task about racial bigotry. Evidently the avocation of love for God's children regardless of race was then considered a "works" thing and therefore unworthy of "faithies". I've been told by "faithies" that love, charity, humility, and pacifism were the sort of worldly things that Christ just hated and simply weren't good enough to take into account on the day of final judgement. I've been punched in the face for having the temerity to recite Mark 5 to a group of "faithies". Some have even suggested that it doesn't matter what a person does in life, so long as one avows faith in Christ. Yes, I've even encountered one who had the courage to suggest that a Nazis concentration camp guard, provided that he accepted Christ as his savior, would be taken to heaven in favor of someone who was guilty of the error of believing that both "works" and "faith" were desired.
IIRC there are passages in the New Testament in which Christ clearly states that in a true believers life the adoption of true faith should automatically lead to proper Christian conduct. If you take into account all that Christ said about love, charity, humility, sincerity, fidelity, temperance, and pacifism it's pretty clear that good works are also required of a believer. Those who do not accept this, who profess faith, and have an adequate knowledge of the scriptures are hypocrits. We all know what Christ thought about hypocrits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
So far we have 34 posters who have come up with an answer that defies logic. One cannot say that "there is no God" unless he knows all and claims to know more than his creator who by definition (if he exists) must know more than he does. Only one who has explored every square inch of the universe in all of its supposed deminsions can say that "there is no God. So much for the intellectual level of Apolyton. A better answer for all you atheists would be "I hope that there is no God". At least then you wouldn't be showing your ignorance.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kucinich
It's called Occam's Razor. It's the reason I can also say "there aren't undetectable little green elves living on the surface of electrons", despite that fact that I can't prove that it's true. |
I guess you didn't know that Occam was a Christian. One of you is misusing logic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Here is a free excerpt from my book. Read it and weep :
Occam and the Fishbowl
When observing various creatures on this earth it soon becomes apparent that some are smarter than others. Some just seem to eat and others are quite complex in their abilities. For instance the fox has the means to foil his enemy through deception and some birds have the inherent ability to lure enemies away from their nest or to fly between the falling droplets of a waterfall. On the other hand some animals are quite dumb by comparison such as certain worms. Honey Bees seem to be very clever insects with the ability to understand certain things about their environment. On a very hot day for instance they will all line up outside of the hive and fan it so that the whole thing doesn’t melt. The common dog also has certain abilities and a certain limited understanding in certain situations. Horses, dolphins, crows, and other animals all have limited understanding and are able to form some conclusions based upon that knowledge. Perhaps you have a pet dog. In the morning you leave the house and he waits for you on the porch knowing that you will return. He fully expects you to do that because he has seen you do it and he has concluded based upon this information that you will be coming back home eventually.
Now let’s consider fish in a fish bowl. The fish have a certain understanding based upon their acquired knowledge of what goes on in the fish bowl. Every morning they see a few crumbs of food falling on the water. Every so often they see a new toy or rock that has entered into their environment. They may discover new fish that seem to have come from nowhere, or snails that crawl on the glass. They see shadows and light outside their little world and they make many observations within their bowl but they really do not know even half of what is going on outside. Why? There are two reasons:
1. They are limited by their circumstances.
2. They do not have the necessary intelligence to figure it out.
It is only reasonable to conclude that we as humans are in asimilar position to that of the goldfish but at a higher level. We lookoff into space and even explore it to some extent but we are limited byour confinement here. Like the goldfish we are limited by ourcircumstances. Also, it is only logical to assume that we as the highestform of animal also have a limited ability to figure everything out. Think of the variation among people. Some people have no problem with complicated scientific formulas or mechanical equations while others do not seem to grasp them at all. Others have the ability to remember historical events and draw conclusions while some seem to be in the dark as to their significance in the present day. Some are intelligent enough to learn several languages while others struggle with one. This variation of intelligence is simply a fact. Exploring the possibility that there is a God inherently requires that we understand that he, if he exists, is more intelligent than us. The other possibility is that we know more than he does and that conclusion is patently absurd. If one assumes that he knows more than God he has already decided that there is no God. Likewise as we shall see, that conclusion is irrational.
Some people think that they do know what goes on outside of the fish bowl that we will call the earth and that which is within our reach. Our pet dogs must wonder what we are doing at times when they watch us being occupied with things that they do not have the ability to understand, but the atheist does not have that problem because he evidently thinks he has the ability to understand everything. A farmer buries a needle in a haystack and promises his children that he will give five dollars to the first kid that finds it, the atheist answers like the children; "There is no needle in the haystack, we have been looking all day." The father goes out with his magnet and finds the needle but one of the kids says that it was a trick. That is what the fanatical atheist does. He calls all of the evidence for God a trick, or the fabrication of deluded minds. He already knows everything so you cannot convince him regardless of the evidence.
Some will say here that I am painting a picture of the atheist with a broad brush and I am. But I am assuming that the typical atheist bases his conclusion that there is no God on evidence and logic. If that is the case then his conclusions must be based on either a lack of evidence or on his own ability to understand everything that is mysterious to the rest of us. If we admit that we do not know everything then we cannot say that there is no God unless we claim to have explored every square inch of the universe in all of its dimensions as well as the unknown whatever without. A certain Russian cosmonaut once said as he peered out of his space capsule that he didn’t see God. In his mind I suppose that was proof that there was no God. I give most atheists more credit than that so I wonder what they have seen or proved that leads them to the same conclusion? Some atheists will argue here that evidence leads them to the conclusion that there is no necessity for a God. Consequently they see the possibility as irrelevant and an added burden to the existing proof that shows our existence and that of the cosmos as very likely without bringing a supernatural being into the picture.
This is known as the Occam’s Razor argument and this "razor" is certainly a valid tool that is often used in forming logical conclusions based upon evidence. The idea of brother Occam is that we should not complicate a simple solution with incredible possibilities. We should instead seek the simplest solution to the problem at hand and "shave off" the part that only adds unnecessary complication to the problem. The atheist then is using this principle of the theist Occam to form the conclusion that there is not a God. It would seem that if Occam believed in God (and he did) it would be an unwarranted conclusion to use his principle of problem solving to shave off God from consideration. God was certainly conceived in Occam’s time as a very complicated being as he is now. Yet he did not find it necessary to "shave off God" from his own research and rules of logic. Why is this?
Well, I don’t know. I never had the opportunity to ask him. I have an idea however. Suppose that we were designing a bridge. We get a lot of input from various salesmen, architects, steel suppliers, engineers and so forth. We decide to use Occam’s principals and shave off all of the extraneous "noise" around us by concentrating on a simple design that accounts for the stress, vibration and other various factors that must be considered. We decide not to include any consideration for gravity because the concept is far too complicated for us to comprehend and it seems an added burden to our existing knowledge of engineering. But the bridge we build collapses under its own weight because we did not consider a critical factor. It is not reasonable to "shave" a critical factor from our consideration regardless of the added complication. I think that Occam knew that and intended his ideas to be used with common sense.
The only logical way that we can use brother Occam’s razor to shave off God from any consideration is if we know for sure that God does not exist. The atheist is therefore either positive that he does not exist or he is not using logic in shaving God from consideration. If he is sure that God does not exist he is likewise forming an illogical conclusion because he is like the cosmonaut who based his evidence on limited knowledge and observation.
The very definition of God implies knowledge and power far beyond our own. How can it be anything but folly to assume that he is not to be considered in any area of our existence? The atheist is not reasoning correctly regardless of whether or not he is absolutely sure that there is no God. So before we even begin our scientific discussions that follow, the atheist stands on an unreasonable foundation. Regardless of how he may try to divert us by claiming that certain theists are also on shaky ground that does not excuse the direct contradiction to his own assertion that his position is based upon logic. It clearly is not. It can however be a foundation based upon his own personal irrational belief. The scientific arguments in the following chapters are not based upon belief but on an orderly, rational consideration of the facts. But first, while we are on the subject of logic and reason let’s look at some more diversions that tend to lead us away from a logical conclusion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
So you are again forming conclusions based on a lack of evidence? You 'stopped reading there'. And now you expect me to argue with someone who refuses to even read an opposing view? The fact is that we as humans do not know everything and we are restricted just as a goldfish in a bowl but on a higher level.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:35
|
|
Of course he can stop reading there. I paraphrase:
quote:
It is only reasonable to conclude that we as humans are in asimilar position to that of the goldfish but at a higher level. |
==
There must be a God.
So your first sentence is the postulate that, since dogs are less clever than men, there must be a god. Pardon me, but I fail to see any kind of logic here.
If there was a logic, since we are more clever than dogs who are more clever than microbes, then there is a god more clever than us and a super-god more clever than god, etc. ad infinitum. If it goes on forever, there's no end and no ultimate god.
quote:
Exploring the possibility that there is a God inherently requires that we understand that he, if he exists, is more intelligent than us. |
No. Suppose God is a player playing a 'Play The World' game. He might be a moron. Now you might say God is in fact the programmer or the designer (let's call him Sid). But Sid couldn't have created the game hadn't there been people ranging from Turing to Bill Gates, so there are many gods or possible gods here...
quote:
the atheist does not have that problem because he evidently thinks he has the ability to understand everything. |
That's totally false. As an atheist, I believe that I don't have the ability to know all, and that it is not possible for anyone to understand or prove everything (there are undecidable/unprovable assertions in any consistent mathematical model for instance).
Noone has shown a magnet bringing out a god.
quote:
If we admit that we do not know everything then we cannot say that there is no God unless we claim to have explored every square inch of the universe in all of its dimensions as well as the unknown whatever without. |
Sure. We cannot say there aren't 999 gods either. We jsut say that it is not necessary to postulate a God and we can do without one. I think there may be a God, or several, or none, and will act as if there was none because there's no need of a God to explain anything.
quote:
But the bridge we build collapses |
Yes, but an atheist's conception of the world doesn't collapse, so your whole comparison is moot.
quote:
The only logical way that we can use brother Occam’s razor to shave off God from any consideration is if we know for sure that God does not exist. |
No. You're saying that 'this tool would let me prove something I dislike if I used it here, so I say it can be used here'.
quote:
The very definition of God implies knowledge and power far beyond our own. How can it be anything but folly to assume that he is not to be considered in any area of our existence? |
Because if there is none, ther's no need to consider it. By definition, the GREadsqfqsf'fmblgh is a very potent disease that kills all existing life if soemone does a Qshhoorere, therefore, we should make sure we never Qshhoorere anytime in our existence, even though it may be impossible to Qshhoorere.
All your arguments are: There is a God, so believing there isn't one is illogical. But you never prove (and cannot) that there is one in the first place.
Religion has been invented partly because human beings want a 'why' everywhere. That's psychology, and nothing more. There is no reason why there should be a reason, a 'why'. Things can just be.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Thanks for your long but irrelevant post. the question was, can one say logically "there is no God"? You, yourself affirmed that no such definitive statement can be made. So what is your point? If you THINK that there is no God then good for you. My point remains inspite of your ramblings. Now this is what you said:
"I think there may be a God, or several, or none, and will act as if there was none because there's no need of a God to explain anything."
So your statement is much more logical than the option in the first post on this thread, i.e., "there is no God." Thanks for clearing that up and proving my point. By the way, which option did you check?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:35
|
|
I checked 'there is no God' for lack of anything better. My point was quite relevant. If I believe there is none, I can say there is none. Everything I say could be termed 'I think that'. So I say that stating 'There is a God' is as stupid as stating 'There is no God'. It's always 'I believe that'.
You're just dodging all my points. Prove to me there aren't 999 gods first, since that was the beginning of my sentence.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-04-2004 20:23
|