Continued Discussion With Lnc

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I was reading that if it is possible for any nesessary entity to exist then all necessary entities must exist, including mutually contradictory ones.

 

Enter Antigod/s...

 

In other words, since rational people like you and Hans exist in this thread, it's necessary that delusional people that are contradictory like LNC must also exist in this thread?

[Ouroboros]

I have given this valid reasoning for the existence of God and therefore, it is more reasonable to posit that God exists than to posit a past-eternal universe.

Pfft...hehehe...hahaha...MUAHAHAHA!!!

[centauri]

...it is said that 500 saw Jesus at one time and it is said that many were living at the time that 1 Cor. was written, so they could verify the statement personally. So, let me ask you, do you accept every statement within the NT that has multiple attestation?

It wouldn't be very likely that the people in Corinth would journey all the way to Jerusalem 15 years after the event to interview the eyewitnesses.

Paul could probably inflate claims and not be terribly worried that people in Corinth would conduct a fact finding mission to Jerusalem.

That would require taking time out from their businesses and lives to chase down eyewitnesses that Paul doesn't actually name except for a few.

There is no multiple attestation for 500+ people seeing Jesus, that story is exclusively Paul's.

[agnosticator]

The problem with your example above of the apparent dichotomy is that matter is contingent in nature and God is necessary in nature.

 

How and why is your god necessary? If your god is invisible and immaterial, maybe he's also irrelevant, irreconcilable, and inconceivable.

[bdp]

The problem with your example above of the apparent dichotomy is that matter is contingent in nature and God is necessary in nature.

 

How and why is your god necessary? If your god is invisible and immaterial, maybe he's also irrelevant, irreconcilable, and inconceivable.

 

I certainly second 'irrelevant.'

[Ouroboros]

Since evil exists, and all must have one First Cause, God is the necessary beginning of evil. Or?

[Dagan]

Am I the only one who thinks LSD talks like a computer program?

IF (?response)=AGREE

THEN

CALL (?PRAISEJESUS)

 

IF (?response)=DISAGREE

THEN

RETURNTO 0

[Mriana]

Am I the only one who thinks LSD talks like a computer program?

IF (?response)=AGREE

THEN

CALL (?PRAISEJESUS)

 

IF (?response)=DISAGREE

THEN

RETURNTO 0

 

That explains why I don't understand 1/2 of what LSD says. You just described why.

[NonXNonExX]

It's obvious the concept of god is necessary for people like Benny H, Ken C and Joyce M so they can maintain the lifestyle they feel they deserve and for people like GWB so they can justify attacking the evil Muslim world. For most normal people, god is most definitely UNnecessary.

 

The real mystery for me is, what did god actually ever do for LNC to make him believe that a god was necessary?

[NotBlinded]

 

 

I was reading that if it is possible for any nesessary entity to exist then all necessary entities must exist, including mutually contradictory ones.

 

Enter Antigod/s...

 

In other words, since rational people like you and Hans exist in this thread, it's necessary that delusional people that are contradictory like LNC must also exist in this thread?

Yes! The damned reality of it all...

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and thank you by-the-way...

[NotBlinded]

 

And on and on it goes...to infinity and beyond!

 

I was reading that if it is possible for any nesessary entity to exist then all necessary entities must exist, including mutually contradictory ones.

 

Enter Antigod/s...

 

Oh, by the way, the cosmological argument is a metaphysical argument.

 

What you want is a metaphysical argument for the existence of an uncaused universe don't you? I'll have search around and see what I can come up with. Although in Western thought, the focus has been on dualism and is highly reflected in philosophical thought. There are a few non-dual philosophers such as Hume, I believe, but there may not be any arguments per-say.

 

You know, I'm not going to bust my b...oh, I don't have those, but I'm not going to exert a lot of energy looking for a metaphysical argument for an uncaused universe that LNC will dismiss with the wave of the cross.

 

There are several counter arguments to the Cosmological Argument that I'm sure he's aware of. It's like Hans said, it matters what one chooses to believe. That is true. LNC just wants one to be less metaphysical than the other. Ahhh, if wishes were money...

[NotBlinded]

I have given this valid reasoning for the existence of God and therefore, it is more reasonable to posit that God exists than to posit a past-eternal universe.

Pfft...hehehe...hahaha...MUAHAHAHA!!!

Don't you just love when laughter creeps up on ya! That was hilarious Hans.

[Neon Genesis]

 

How and why is your god necessary? If your god is invisible and immaterial, maybe he's also irrelevant, irreconcilable, and inconceivable.

Even the Christian author Karen Armstrong states in her book The Case For God that a supernatural deity that's invisible and regulated into a distant supernatural realm we can never see is destined to eventually die off due to irrelevance.

[Ouroboros]

Don't you just love when laughter creeps up on ya! That was hilarious Hans.

It's just one of those tragicomic situations. You don't know if you should feel pity for the poor guy, or just just bluntly laugh at him. This time, I chose to act the latter, but I still feel the former. What a delusion. He really believes he has proven something, and/or give solid evidence. Of some reason, I keep on reflecting on Ken Hovind and his behavior. He used to be this full of it too, until IRS came down on him.

[NotBlinded]

Don't you just love when laughter creeps up on ya! That was hilarious Hans.

It's just one of those tragicomic situations. You don't know if you should feel pity for the poor guy, or just just bluntly laugh at him. This time, I chose to act the latter, but I still feel the former. What a delusion. He really believes he has proven something, and/or give solid evidence. Of some reason, I keep on reflecting on Ken Hovind and his behavior. He used to be this full of it too, until IRS came down on him.

Ohhhh....kinda like those funniest videos where people hurt themselves but in an extremely funny manner. I don't like those either, but sometimes dammit, I laugh too.

[agnosticator]

 

How and why is your god necessary? If your god is invisible and immaterial, maybe he's also irrelevant, irreconcilable, and inconceivable.

Even the Christian author Karen Armstrong states in her book The Case For God that a supernatural deity that's invisible and regulated into a distant supernatural realm we can never see is destined to eventually die off due to irrelevance.

 

That's two more votes for "irrelevant"...how many more votes does it take to close the case?

[LNC]

It's fascinating to me how when your average "generational Christian" gets on here and gets his brains beat out, most of you mock him/her and have a good chuckle. Most here taunt them and ask where they went. I really thought most of you were interested in finding truth. That is what keeps me here lurking and learning. I love being challenged by the questions, and problems that you all have with Christianity. It makes me think, research, and examine myself to see why I believe what I believe, and if those beliefs are valid. My only point is that it seems like many of you are resorting to ad hominem attacks on LNC instead of addressing his points. While there are many of you I disagree with, I still hold respect for your genuine pursuit of truth. I would hate to think that you all are content with devouring the all too common non-thinking Christians that frequent these forums. I have been reading the material on this forum for over a year and have not seen one Christian as dedicated to responding to posts as LNC. That is why I mostly just read. It is literally overwhelming to respond to the flurry of responses that is spawned by just one Christian's post. Plus, I will admit, I am just not as learned as most of you on here. I would rather keep to myself than be made to look the fool. I suppose it's my pride. Anyway, I have been enjoying the debate between several of you and LNC. I am learning much from both sides. I think it is very unfair to call him a troll and hope to see these discussions continue.

 

Thanks for your comments and fair-minded attitude.

[LNC]

Have you really read everything LNC has posted? Maybe you have I don't want to assume, but even I haven't read everything. I stopped conversing seriously with LNC quite some time ago precisely because it is impossible to have an intelligent, or real, conversation with him. I don't know if "troll" would be the best description for him. I would mostly say that he is just another "non-thinking christian" as you put it. My main problem with him/her is that we are not actually having a conversation. LNC is just having a monologue for which we happen to be present. The same bad arguments are used over and over again and any answers we give are ignored. The he turns around and says we have not given him any answers.

 

I for one am more that willing to speak and do so civilly with many Christians who come here, and even learn from them, but only if they are here to actually have a conversation. LNC has stuck it out, I will give him that, but he is not here to learn or converse. He treats us all as petulant children instead of his equals, and offers nothing except arguments I studied and dismissed more than half a decade ago.

 

The only thing I have learned from talking with LNC is that some people are just willfully ignorant of reality and there is naught to do but simply ignore them.

 

Wow, in just the next post the tone changes. I don't know how you can say that I am a "non-thinking" Christian." I also find it interesting that you say that I am having a monologue when the posts in response to mine so far outnumber mine, that I cannot keep up with them. What do you consider to be a monologue and how do you consider the give and take discussion going on here to fit with your definition?

 

It is interesting that you assert that I treat people here as petulant children, in what way? I would be interested in what you want me to do to get on your good side. Do you want me to agree with you? Of what reality do you consider me to be ignorant? If you believe that I am ignorant, wouldn't it be in my best interest for you to correct it?

[LNC]

LNC is a troll and a Habermas Bot. If you can't see it, then you haven't read enough of his posts. He repeats, parrot-like, all of Habermas's doctrine. Many have challenged him on his basic assumptions and he doesn't even respond with any inquiry. He is stuck - seems almost like an automatic machine that spits out the same answers over and over. And we are expected to not call a spade a spade?

 

Why shouldn't I repeat a valid argument. I have noticed that not many people have attempted to refute it. Calling Habermas a name is not a refutation. If you think his argument is invalid, please show me where and why.

 

BTW, I am not the only one who is repeating arguments. It seems that this thread was a branch off of the discussion on Bart Ehrman's book and many here have been using his arguments on the thread.

[Auracle]

Have you really read everything LNC has posted? Maybe you have I don't want to assume, but even I haven't read everything. I stopped conversing seriously with LNC quite some time ago precisely because it is impossible to have an intelligent, or real, conversation with him. I don't know if "troll" would be the best description for him. I would mostly say that he is just another "non-thinking christian" as you put it. My main problem with him/her is that we are not actually having a conversation. LNC is just having a monologue for which we happen to be present. The same bad arguments are used over and over again and any answers we give are ignored. The he turns around and says we have not given him any answers.

 

I for one am more that willing to speak and do so civilly with many Christians who come here, and even learn from them, but only if they are here to actually have a conversation. LNC has stuck it out, I will give him that, but he is not here to learn or converse. He treats us all as petulant children instead of his equals, and offers nothing except arguments I studied and dismissed more than half a decade ago.

 

The only thing I have learned from talking with LNC is that some people are just willfully ignorant of reality and there is naught to do but simply ignore them.

 

Wow, in just the next post the tone changes. I don't know how you can say that I am a "non-thinking" Christian." I also find it interesting that you say that I am having a monologue when the posts in response to mine so far outnumber mine, that I cannot keep up with them. What do you consider to be a monologue and how do you consider the give and take discussion going on here to fit with your definition?

 

It is interesting that you assert that I treat people here as petulant children, in what way? I would be interested in what you want me to do to get on your good side. Do you want me to agree with you? Of what reality do you consider me to be ignorant? If you believe that I am ignorant, wouldn't it be in my best interest for you to correct it?

 

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think it's a little hard to consider a discussion to be "give and take" when every post we make is met with a basic response of we don't know what the hell we're talking about, we don't have the proper interpretation, we don't agree with your "vast majority" of scholars, we need to read more, etc.

 

When you keep repeating the same things over and over regardless of what dissenting response you get, it may as well be a monologue.

[Kuroikaze]

Wow, in just the next post the tone changes. I don't know how you can say that I am a "non-thinking" Christian."

 

I say it because of the large amount of nonsense you sell as logic. The only two possibilities I can see is that you are either lying or you have simply turned your brain off when it comes to discussions of your religion.

 

A troll would be lying....simply to stir up trouble just for troubles sake. I was actually trying to give you a bit of credit by not asserting that you were being intentionally duplicitous.

 

I also find it interesting that you say that I am having a monologue when the posts in response to mine so far outnumber mine, that I cannot keep up with them. What do you consider to be a monologue and how do you consider the give and take discussion going on here to fit with your definition?

 

I was using a metaphor What I meant was that our responses are entirely unimportant to anything you say. You continue to use arguments that we (and generally philosophy, science and common sense) has refuted, and then say we never refuted it. I say qualifies as not a real conversation. If you could show me even one place where you ever admitted you were wrong on something significant I might take this back, but of course this never happened because you are always right. Right?

 

It is interesting that you assert that I treat people here as petulant children, in what way? I would be interested in what you want me to do to get on your good side. Do you want me to agree with you? Of what reality do you consider me to be ignorant? If you believe that I am ignorant, wouldn't it be in my best interest for you to correct it?

 

The suggestion that well all "KNOW" god exists but pretend we do not. If this was truly our behavior it would not be the behavior of reasonable people but of a child who didn't get his way. Respect is a two way street, you do not give it so I do not give it in return. If you don't like it tough cookies.

 

Do you even WANT to get on my good side? I assure the feeling is not mutual, I have no need to be on your "good side" nor do I think anything you would be willing to do would get you on mine.

 

Why is it in my best interest to correct your ignorance? One, I don't even know you, Two I am not your teacher or educator. Three, ignorance is only correctable when the ignorant party is willing to learn, you have a severe shortage of that willingness.

 

I am mostly of a libertarian mindset, I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever stupid shit happens to be in their head, as long as they don't try to force me to come along for the ride. As long as fundamentalist Christians leave the rest of us out of their nonsense I don't really care what they believe.

[LNC]

That's fair. Myth is a story that could be true or false or a little of both. They have elements that are shared such as a hero and the quest undertaken. Jesus was a savior hero not much different than other myths. Myths have people that undertake a journey in order to learn something about themselves and their place in society. Mythological symbols may change, but the psychological, social, etc impact they have on the person and society are pretty much the same. Myths are meant to point to truths inside a person, not to the outside world. This is why a new myth is needed. The myths of 2000+ years ago do not relate us to ourselves in our society. They were for a different time.

 

Here is an excerpt from a Joseph Campbell interview. He says these things much better than I can. Mythic Reflections

 

First, even if your comparisons were accurate, they would prove nothing other than that there is some comparison. There is no reason to conclude based upon this that Jesus was a myth. Second, by attempting to write Jesus off as a myth in this way you are simply committing the genetic fallacy. Third, we have multiple attestation to Jesus' life, including from sources that were not necessarily followers or friendly to Christians, so that also works against the Jesus is a myth theory.

 

I'm going to yank this part out and address it separately:

 

I find it interesting that Joseph says that the best truths cannot be spoken and the second best are misunderstood. He seems to put himself in a position to know this and to understand these truths such that he knows that others misunderstand them. How does he know this? From where does he get his information and why should I trust his interpretation? Cannot I see his words as symbolism and interpret them the way that I think appropriate? If not, why not?

 

It really doesn't matter because the story isn't being related to your own inward salvation now. It is a postponement of what can happen to you now. We can all die to our "sins" right now, on our own cross right now. These symbols are supposed to relate you to an inward experience. Taken outwardly, you will live your life being lost in your sin waiting for a day in the future sometime. Jesus was pretty much about getting one to understand the inner peace in the present. This can't happen if you turn the symbols outward. You never get to experience your own salvation; you await a savior from the outside.

 

This is why I say it doesn't matter if the stories happened or not. Especially if they are taken to heart so to speak. But, one has to be able to relate to the story if any "Aha" moment is going to happen. The story can be the same, but with different props. Ones more suitable to our time. Star Wars was writen based off of Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces. This story is futuristic, but it has many of the same elements of myth. Now, if we can find one in between somewhere.

 

Just google Christian mythology and you will be able to see the elements that are common in myths appearing in Christianity also.

 

Where does Jesus say that he was about getting us to understand the inner peace in the present? I never see him saying this and to interpret his words this way is to ignore most of what he said about our sinful condition. I guess that it doesn't really matter if anything happens in your view as it is all about how we interpret the symbols that impress our senses. And, we can interpret sense impressions in whatever way we want, so why not just come up with our own belief system and then interpret everything to reach the ends that we hope to reach anyway? I don't mean to misrepresent what you are saying or to take it lightly, but I am really curious how we keep any grounding in reality given this view, so maybe you can help me understand this.

[NotBlinded]

Where does Jesus say that he was about getting us to understand the inner peace in the present? I never see him saying this and to interpret his words this way is to ignore most of what he said about our sinful condition. I guess that it doesn't really matter if anything happens in your view as it is all about how we interpret the symbols that impress our senses. And, we can interpret sense impressions in whatever way we want, so why not just come up with our own belief system and then interpret everything to reach the ends that we hope to reach anyway? I don't mean to misrepresent what you are saying or to take it lightly, but I am really curious how we keep any grounding in reality given this view, so maybe you can help me understand this.

And...there is something wrong with that how?

 

Inner peace in the present? Read the Sermon on the Mount lately? Does he have to come out and literally say "inner peace in the present" for the message to get through?

 

Do not allow your worries to consume tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself. Surely there is enough to concern you each day without fretting about the future. Which of you by mental effort can add one inch to your height?

 

Consider the birds of the air. They are not consumed with worry. At night they sleep soundly, knowing that their heavenly Father cares for them. Do you not matter more than the birds?

 

Are not two sparrows sold in the marketplace for a few pennies? Still, one of them cannot fall to the ground without your heavenly Father's knowledge. Cease being afraid. You are of greater value than many flocks of sparrows. Even the very hairs of your head are numbered.

 

Why then worry about what you will wear? Consider the lilies growing wild in the fields, blooming without effort. Even King Solomon in all of his glory was not arrayed as beautifully as one of these. If God has so cared for that which grows wild in the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is cast into the fire, will he not care for you much more? How can you have such little faith?

 

Therefore, stop saying: “What will I eat? What will I drink? Will I ever have enough to clothe myself?” This is how the faithless think, anxious for everything. Be at peace! Your heavenly Father knows that you have need of all of these things, and more.

 

Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all of your needs will be provided.

Now, with that in mind, read his other sayings. "Let the dead bury their dead" "Learn to give and it will be given back to you abundantly, more than you can imagine, multiplied and overflowing" "As you live your life invigorated by the breath of God, the conflicts of this earth will be overcome by heaven's power: and whatever you allocate on earth will be that which is in accordance to heaven's plan" "Do not limit your attitude of forgiveness. Are you willing to forgive seven times? Seventy times seven times is more appropriate. Make peace, even with you enemies" etc...

[bdp]

"...we have multiple attestation to Jesus' life."

 

No we don't, we have a lot of hearsay after the alleged 'fact.'

[LNC]

LNC said:

 

I do believe, for example, that it matters whether Jesus lived or not. If he lived, was God as he claimed, died on the cross to pay for sins, and rose again to display victory over sin and death, then I can be redeemed from my sin (and so can you). If Jesus was purely a mythical figure, and therefore, wasn't God, didn't die on the cross, didn't rise again, then I am lost in my sin (and so are you). It does matter whether this is a real or mythical account.

 

 

 

...or, option C, 'sin' is a mythical concept. The accounts of 'Jesus' only matter if 'sin' is real. I don't lose any sleep over any of it.

 

Do you believe that sin is a mythical concept? If so, do you live that way in relation to others? In other word, when someone offends you, do you tell yourself that sin is merely a mythical concept and you should get over feeling offended? Or, is it just sin against God that you consider to be mythical?