Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Continued Discussion With Lnc


Ouroboros

Recommended Posts

LNC, i hope you'll indulge me for just a second to ask you a question that's entirely off topic, but it's been on my mind for some time now. I notice you use the Chinese symbol for true or truth. Does that have anything to do with the interpretation of that character as it was explained to me by a Chinese Xtian, i.e. the cross on top, the gravestone with three names on it and the symbol for a person below?

 

I am not Chinese myself, nor do I read Chinese (my daughters are Chinese), but that is an interesting question. I will do some research on that and let you know what I find out. Thanks for asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 392
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • LNC

    101

  • Ouroboros

    49

  • NotBlinded

    36

  • Mriana

    34

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I see what you're saying, Hans. When I was a christian, I didn't realize why I believed what I believed until questions began to pop up. I never did see much evidence in all those christian books I read in attempting to answer those questions. I also didn't find what christians believe about loss of faith to be true: That I would feel lost and empty without the relationship and the beliefs.

 

Maybe LNC fears there is an abyss beyond belief? Or as you say, he doesn't understand the underlying reasons of his beliefs.

 

I don't think that has entered my mind as a reason for my convictions. I hope that I have shown that I have a grasp on my convictions and why I hold them. I hold to my convictions because I believe that they best match with the reality of the world around us than any other worldview that I have studied and tested in this manner. And, for your knowledge, I have tested most of the major world religions and continue to test other worldviews as I come across them. I just find that the ones that I have tested have major and irreconcilable flaws to them that I don't find with the Christian worldview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Which means that even Christian must believe there are more than "one" universe, and if we talk about three or more, we're talking about several, in other words "multi" is an accurate use of the word, and multi-universe is totally accurate and consistent with the Christian belief as well as scientific. Which means, LNC refusing to believe in a multi-universe (multiverse) is paradoxical. He believe in heaven and hell, but he doesn't believe it to exist in this universe, and at the same time, he doesn't believe them to exist in another universe either...

 

Let me clarify a couple of concepts here so we don't continue down an erroneous line of argumentation. Universes, as we generally understand them, are physical in nature. Heaven and hell would not be considered alternate universes as they are not physical manifestations. Therefore, you have either misunderstood the concept of what a universe is, or what heaven is, or both. I hope that clarifies the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless there is another logical alternative, that makes LNC an implicit annihilationist. Nothing exists outside of this universe - there is no heaven or hell. You go nowhere when you die.

 

Yes, the logical alternative is that heaven and hell are not physical manifestations, but spiritual in nature. Besides, even if it were physical in nature, it could still exist within this universe in a different dimension. String theory posits up to 11 dimensions if I remember correctly. So, either way, your argument doesn't carry and doesn't even logically lead to the conclusion that I am an annihilationist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which he doesn't. He has stated quite clearly that he believes in a Heaven, Hell, afterlife, etc. And that God is not of this world. I can't make out what he really means. On one side God is outside time and space, but God isn't in a different universe. And after we die, we become that same thing, some kind of existence in a non-existing void? This needs an explanation.

 

See my previous posts, no further comment needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, here is what Ehrman says about how much the variants effects Christian doctrine since you apparently didn't read this quote the first time I posted it and I'll even bold it for you this time so you won't miss it.

The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger's position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. What he means by that (I think) is that even if one or two passages that are used to argue for a belief have a different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief. For the most part, I think that's true.

 

But I was looking at the question from a different angle. My question is not about traditional Christian beliefs, but about how to interpret the passages of the Bible. And my point is that if you change what the words say, then you change what the passage means. Most textual variants (Prof. Metzger and I agree on this) have no bearing at all on what a passage means. But there are other textual variants (we agree on this as well) that are crucial to the meaning of a passage. And the theology of entire books of the New Testament are sometimes affected by the meaning of individual passages. From my point of view, the stakes are rather high: Does Luke's Gospel teach a doctrine of atonement (that Christ's death atones for sins)? Does John's Gospel teach that Christ is the "unique God" himself? Is the doctrine of the Trinity ever explicitly stated in the New Testament? These and other key theological issues are at stake, depending on which textual variants you think are original and which you think are creations of early scribes who were modifying the text.

Now where in any of this does Ehrman say these variants do not affect Christianity at all like you claim he says?

 

I am saying that the variants for which Ehrman has the strongest evidence, no core doctrine of Christianity is affected. For those that do affect core doctrines, his evidence is weak and would not pass peer review. So, in essence, he has no good evidence for a variant that would affect core Christian doctrine despite what he says in this quote. If you believe differently, then maybe we can discuss the variants for which you believe he has strong evidence and which would alter core Christian doctrines if his case were to carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So which groups and which texts contained the "right" information and which contained the "wrong" information? The assumption has been to simply find the autographs of what was in the current NT and that would be "right" but how do we know? Such items may not even exist. There may be "originals" for our current NT but not autographs.

 

Can you see the distinction? It's subtle. Kind of like a revision. This may help. Think of Mickey Mouse. There's the original one from way back (I can't remember the date). And since then he's gone through a number of revisions. He's still Mickey Mouse though. You may even find a knock-off or two (until Disney sues those heretical mice out of existence). But was Mickey a truly "original" creation? We're told he was but at the same time we're told of Oswald Rabbit. Would Oswald be the proper "autograph" for Mickey? Meaning if really didn't know the story behind all of this and put these two characters side-by-side would you be able to say that Mickey came from Oswald? Or would the evidence be such that you'd note the similarities but ultimately have to dismiss it? You'd never find Oswald tracing through Mickey. You'd never find Mickey through Oswald. There's a little "gap." But all the Mickey's go back to that "original" Mickey and that's as close as you're going to get to that "autograph."

 

mwc

 

We are not dealing with the autographs as they are believed no longer to exist. We are simply trying to reconstruct what was in the autogrpha. It is a very well developed science that is applied not only to the Bible, but to other ancient manuscripts as well. However, the assumption is that we can often get back to what was believed to be in the original by applying these techniques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a degree?

 

Finishing an advanced degree now.

 

No, the problem is that you think that YOU know more about the Bible and scholar work and history than Ehrman, Price, and many others.

 

It is you who claim to know these things better than them. Not me. If you have scholars in the Bible admitting to the errors of the Bible, then who am I to argue against them? There are pro and cons. There are for and against. But why would I disregard some of them which you have picked, and only believe and trust those you have chosen? You are in no position to really discern which one of them are right and which one are wrong, because you have been far out completely wrong at several times. (Even contradicted the Bible at times, and totally ignored to respond when it was pointed out to you. So do I trust you? Not one iota.--see, I know some Greek too!)

 

Ehrman and Price are not the only scholars in the field. I simply believe that their presuppositions taint their conclusions. They have closed off one possible explanation, which means that they limit their conclusions to fit within their predefined boundaries. I don't claim to know more than they do, but I don't limit myself as they do. I believe that their presuppositions are based upon personal beliefs, not on good philosophy. The people whom I believe to do better work in this field simply don't have these presuppositional boundaries and are willing to consider all the possible explanations rather than to rule some out because they don't fit within those boundaries. I believe that their presuppositions are not philosophically tenable. So, yes, I believe that I am in a position to discern when they, mainly for presuppositional reasons, rule out a possible (and often, more probable) interpretation of a passage. I am impressed with your Greek knowledge, small as it is (get it, iota = small), just a little Greek levity.

 

It's how I hear you argue for the authenticity of the Bible. Because some facts in the Bible happens to be true, doesn't make all of it true. Still you believe it does.

 

Funny, that is how you argued that something is not true, just because it is mentioned doesn't make it true...

 

Right now it's you who is defining what a "true" Christian is, so of course every Christian who contradicts your position is in your view a false teacher, while some would consider YOU a false teacher. Because of this ambiguity of what a "true" or "false" Christian is, I can't take your word for more authoritative than the next.

 

If A calls B a liar, and B calls A a liar, then I prefer to stand on the sideline and make up my own mind.

 

No, the Bible authors defined what a true Christian was as most were taught by the author of Christianity himself, Jesus. I am simply using their definition. Paul called people false teachers, was that wrong? Peter did the same, again, was that wrong? How about when Jesus did it, would you say he was wrong? So, if I use their definition, why am I wrong? Do you believe that there is such a thing as a true and a false Christian? If so, on what basis? If not, how do you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevermind. I misread something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, because I don't understand word you're saying because you're speaking complete gibberish and are completely contradicting yourself. You've repeatedly have said the gospels have no mythology and that's it's entirely accurate but when we point out inaccuracies and when YOU YOURSELF admit that the story of God raising the Jewish people from the dead is made up, you say you're not arguing for inerannacy but at the same time claim everything in the gospels are accurate while at the samee time admitting there's made up nonsense in it. You are a liar and and a hypocrite and I'm done debating with you until you can tell the truth.

 

How have I contradicted myself and if I am speaking complete gibberish, as you claim, how do you know I contradicted myself? Where did I say that the Bible is entirely accurate (please cite the post)? You have also misrepresented my statement regarding mythology. What I said is that the NT is not written in the genre of mythology. I don't claim that it doesn't contain mythology as Paul spoke of mythologies that the people to whom he spoke adhered. The Apostles also confronted people who were steeped in mythology, so I never said that it contained no reference to mythology, just that it is not written in the genre of mythology. Can you see the difference? It is an important distinction, so if you don't understand, please tell me so that I can explain more clearly.

 

Again, I don't believe I ever said that the story of the people being raised from the dead is made up. I simply said that it is not part of the evidence that I present for the resurrection. I am making a specific case with specific evidence, which no one on this thread has directly addressed up to this point. I am not arguing on the basis of inerrancy or inspiration, but on the basis of the Bible as an historical record. If you want to specifically take on the evidence that I have presented, please do so, but as for these other accounts, they are not part of the case I am presenting.

 

I thought LNC claimed before that he was a chemist but he's also magically a scholar at the same time? I call bullshit on him.

 

Where did I claim to be a chemist? You people make claims that the Bible is invented history while doing so yourselves about me and about things that I have said. This post is fraught with invented history about me and what I supposedly said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LNC, you claim that your faith is based on evidence.

 

I can only assume that you mean the Biblical record, since there is zero extra-Biblical evidence for Christianity.

 

So what evidence do you have that the Bible is true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a classic red herring ...

 

I don't believe that anyone ...

 

Let me clarify a couple ...

 

See my previous posts, no further comment needed.

 

Finishing an advanced degree now.

 

Blah, blah, blah, blah...

 

Go back to your "Shroud of Turing believers" club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I don't believe I ever said that the story of the people being raised from the dead is made up. I simply said that it is not part of the evidence that I present for the resurrection. I am making a specific case with specific evidence, which no one on this thread has directly addressed up to this point. I am not arguing on the basis of inerrancy or inspiration, but on the basis of the Bible as an historical record. If you want to specifically take on the evidence that I have presented, please do so, but as for these other accounts, they are not part of the case I am presenting.

 

What evidence? Someone wrote something down 2,000 years ago. Its a TEXT. That is ALL it is. Someone says someone else saw something and we are not even able to interview the witnesses. You keep trying to make this into something else. You are putting this on the same level as scientific evidence -- you use words like "would not pass peer review" and "it is a very well developed science" as if we were discussing a scientific treatise. Changing the language does not change the fact of what this so-called evidence is. Although it may contain some details that are historically accurate that is not proof that this specific event occurred. It is insufficient. You admit it contains mythology. How do you know the resurrection isn't mythology then? How do you separate it? Maybe you think the shroud of Turin fits the bill. Your "specific evidence" of the Bible we already know about, we studied it for years. Biblical texts cannot prove this event, so why should we waste our time further trying to get this point across?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biblical texts cannot prove this event, so why should we waste our time further trying to get this point across?

It isn't possible because LNC is judging his worldview against others without trying to step out of his own. He is both the judge and the advocate. He can't really gage another's view without actually trying to shift the way he thinks about things. He can't do this because he doesn't recognize there are other ways of seeing things. He's trapped. We all are to some degree, but to be so entwined in one's belief, it's hard to gage the truth of another's. He's seeking absolute truth, somewhere, somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not arguing on the basis of inerrancy or inspiration, but on the basis of the Bible as an historical record. If you want to specifically take on the evidence that I have presented, please do so, but as for these other accounts, they are not part of the case I am presenting.

The bible is a historical record of events, places and what people believed to be true and some parts that were added to enhance the validity of their belief. It isn't a record of the truth of those beliefs. It matters what type of truths you are addressing when looking for truth.

 

And yes, mythology. Jesus used symbolism in many stories he told. Do you think there really was a podigal son? What was meant by the story of Jonah and the whale - the preconfiguration of Christ? What is meant by ressurection - being born anew? What is meant by "carry one's cross"? Literalism kills the intent regardless if it actually occured or not. That is not what is important. How do you know what kind of truth these people initially believed? Was it a objective truth or was it a spiritual truth or a little of both? Is it of utmost importance that a whale swallowed Jonah? Is it really so important that Jesus rose from the dead? What is important about these stories is that one's life can be changed or ressurected and your reward will come naturally. What do you fear other than the stories themselves?

 

Christianity contains these mythological elements:

 

Cosmogonic myths

Origin myths

Legends

Eschatological myths

 

What myths do for a society:

 

Metaphysical function

Cosmological dimension

Sociological function

Psychological function

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why is LNC waiting a week later to respond to my posts after I've already declared a week ago that I'm done debating with him? Is following a five page thread really so difficult?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And why is it the same old stuff he replies with over and over- same tune, same song and dance, worded slightly differently?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Paul didn't base his faith on evidence, but a vision! When did he see christ risen? How is religious "faith" the same as having trust that my eyes see my friend sitting across the table from me? I trust my senses that he is there. I base that on all the evidence of my existence here on earth. This is not religious faith, but ordinary trust in reality.

 

Paul explains a few times of his encounter with the risen Jesus. Gal. 1:11-17; 1 Cor. 9:1, 15:8-11 and other passages.

 

"blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."-Jesus said this to Thomas after he put his fingers in his side. He is stating it is better to have faith, or to believe without evidence, than proof or evidence in order to confirm belief. That is biblical "faith". That's why Thomas doubted. He lacked Pauline "faith".

 

Right, but it doesn't mean that they believe without evidence, it simply means that we believe without having seen the risen Jesus. You are stretching it to imply that this means belief without proof or evidence. Paul lacked what you would call Pauline faith if it is as you describe it since Paul saw Jesus and believed after hearing the voice of Jesus and what many consider having seen Jesus.

 

It is myopic enough to be blind. We see by "faith" that the supernatural exists, and that the future heaven/hell will be.

 

How do you figure. That again seems to be an interpretation that is unsupported by the evidence. I think that we have greater evidence that the supernatural and spiritual realm exists than evidence that it does or could not.

 

Why tell an agnostic this?

 

Agnostic would mean that there is a possibility in your mind that God could exist, does it not? And, even if you were an atheist, that wouldn't mean that God doesn't exist, just that you wouldn't believe that he did.

 

These are only issues to you. The universe is not perfection (and never was)like an idealist may want it to be. Those who wish to see reality as they want it to be can do so. But don't expect everyone to believe it.

 

I find the christian view of the universe to be grossly inadequate and anti-life.

 

(Edited because I decided to add this:)

 

Why must you have definitive answers for the origin of the universe, especially when experts don't? Sure, we humans always ask "why and how" things are the way they are. However, the universe and just IS. We don't know anything beyond that.

 

Morality, personality, and the mind from which they originate, are not exclusive to the human animal. They evolved or developed in other animals too. Homo Sapiens didn't drop out of the sky, so they aren't separate (and special) from other animals.

 

Your god boils down to a superhuman with special powers. But if god exists, god is a mystery, and anything you have to say is mere speculation, and inadequate. Yet you believe you possess special supernatural "knowledge" about a god/human with super powers that interacts inside and outside of the universe. And of course, that god communicates with you...

 

I am not sure what you are getting at with your first statement, you will have to explain that to me. I don't see the universe as being perfect as I see evidence of sin within the universe.

 

How is the Judeo-Christian view inadequate and anti-life?

 

Aren't you curious about the origin of the universe? Most scientists believe that it had an origin and philosophers add weight to that argument as an infinite past regression is logically problematic, if not impossible.

 

Are you saying that animals have a moral code? I am not averse to that explanation, but find it lacks a degree of support. We can look at behaviors of animals; however, we cannot read their intentions. Yes, animals seem to have some sort of rudimentary mind; however, the human mind is different by a vast degree. I don't think that you can produce any evidence that minds evolved as minds are immaterial entities. In other words, you don't have a fossil record. If you believe that humans are no different than animals, then you have not read much on human development or even looked around you. How many animals are able to think and develop thought like humans? How many animals have advanced the way that humans have? Your statement is uninformed.

 

How do you know that God is merely a superhuman? In what way is God human (apart from the fact that he came down to take on human flesh)? Did God have a body before Jesus took one on? Did God exist before Jesus came to earth? How do you know that God is a mystery? Wouldn't that require knowledge of God to know this? How do you know that what we know about God is speculation, again this requires inside knowledge that you must explain. How do you know that God doesn't communicate with his creation? You assume a lot of knowledge in these statements that you deny to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good question, let me explain. It is having a proper understanding of what faith is according to the biblical authors. It was never a blind leap in the dark, but rather moving in the direction in which the evidence points and trusting where beyond the point where it ends. In other words, we cannot say for certain what happened in the distant past as none of us were there to personally witness the events; however, we can piece together what happened from the evidence and trust that the evidence when properly pieced together and understood will indicate what actually took place. It is the same thing practiced in forensic science. The scientist pieces together what occurred in a past event and makes inferences based upon that evidence. It is called inference to the best explanation. There is still faith involved, but it is an informed faith.

 

According to "Biblical authors"? That means you are being TOLD what to believe. Evidence? What evidence?

 

Why does it logically follow that I am being TOLD what to believe? Does that mean that you are being TOLD what to believe when you read a book or listen to a lecturer, or do you choose what to believe and what not to believe? Why would you deny me the freedom to choose what to believe? We have eyewitness accounts which are supported by other evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, you are saying that religious faith is exactly the same as everyday trust? And you are comparing forensic science's methods of discovering truth with discovering biblical truth and its' supernatural assertions. You said in another thread tonight that Jesus is both human (material) and god (ghostly); able to walk through walls and eat food. Both natural and supernatural exist together and you have evidence of this?

 

Your leap "beyond the point where it ends" IS a blind one-that's faith. Evidence leads to what is provable in reality. Mriana asks "what evidence?" The best explanation would be "the evidence is lacking". "Faith sees the invisible, believes the unbelievable, and receives the impossible"!

 

Sure, why not? I am saying that we look at evidence that same way and draw conclusions the same way. We can look at a few different pieces of evidence. First is the origin of the universe. Scientists and philosophers believe that it did not always exist, which means that nature did not always exist and must have a cause (according the the first principle of science that says that every material effect has a cause). Since there could be no material explanation, we look to an immaterial entity. That entity had to always exist, otherwise that entity would require a cause for its existence. The cause also had to be powerful, intelligent, and personal as we see a vast universe, filled with information (intelligence), which is finely tuned, and required a cause that could will it into existence.

 

Second, we look at Jesus' claims to be God, his foretelling of his crucifixion and resurrection, and the witnesses who said that they saw him alive after being three days dead and who were radically changed by those appearances. Two of those changed included Saul (Paul), a persecutor of the church, and James, Jesus' brother and a former skeptic. There are two pieces of solid evidence for the supernatural.

 

If you believe that this is a blind leap of faith, then every act which goes beyond the available evidence is a leap of faith, and that would include much of scientific theory. Your definition of faith is specious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this. I might also recommend an interview with an important figure in the debate, Daniel Wallace from Dallas Theological Seminary, another important figure in the study of textual criticism, you can find the interview here.

And what was I supposed to take away from this interview?

 

mwc

 

That scholars are not all on the same page with Bart Ehrman, and for good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LNC, you claim that your faith is based on evidence.

 

I can only assume that you mean the Biblical record, since there is zero extra-Biblical evidence for Christianity.

 

So what evidence do you have that the Bible is true?

 

My convictions are based on the biblical evidence, yes, but not only the biblical evidence. I have explained elsewhere that I also base my convictions on science, history, philosophy and other pieces of evidence and argumentation. So you are incorrect in stating that there is zero extra-biblical evidence. Science has determined that the universe most likely had a beginning which cannot be explained by natural causes as the universe is the totality of nature. Objective morality is another piece evidence for the supernatural. The existence of logic, aesthetic beauty, and other ideas, including the existence of the mind also point to the existence of the supernatural.

 

You seem to confuse ideas that are often confused. I argue that the eyewitness accounts in the NT are considered evidence and are treated as such by scholars. I consider that the evidence is reliable based upon the research done by scholars to test the reliability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What evidence? Someone wrote something down 2,000 years ago. Its a TEXT. That is ALL it is. Someone says someone else saw something and we are not even able to interview the witnesses. You keep trying to make this into something else. You are putting this on the same level as scientific evidence -- you use words like "would not pass peer review" and "it is a very well developed science" as if we were discussing a scientific treatise. Changing the language does not change the fact of what this so-called evidence is. Although it may contain some details that are historically accurate that is not proof that this specific event occurred. It is insufficient. You admit it contains mythology. How do you know the resurrection isn't mythology then? How do you separate it? Maybe you think the shroud of Turin fits the bill. Your "specific evidence" of the Bible we already know about, we studied it for years. Biblical texts cannot prove this event, so why should we waste our time further trying to get this point across?

 

You seem to be confused as to what constitutes evidence. Yes, something written down 2K years ago does constitute evidence as it is claimed to have been written down at the time of the events and by people who were witnesses or connected to witnesses of the events in question. Your post is just TEXT, that is ALL it is. Does that mean that it is meaningless? Does that mean that it contains nothing of value? You are using text to discount text, I don't understand your point. Do you understand what science is and its philosophical roots? It was developed by writing words down on paper and passing it along. Many of the scientific ideas that we have predate the NT, does that mean that these ideas are invalid?

 

People keep putting words in my mouth that I didn't say, as you are. I didn't say that the Bible doesn't include mythology, I said that it is not written in the genre of myth. Do you understand the genre of myth and could you identify the differences between mythology and that which is not? Apparently not as you would not make this literary error. The mythology contained within the Bible is a description of the myths that existed in other cultures during the history of Israel and Christianity, which makes it easy to separate if you actually understand the genre and have read the Bible.

 

The Shroud of Turin is not in the Bible, so why have you brought that into the conversation? What do you mean that the text cannot prove the event? I have said that they are evidence of the events that can be tested for reliability, which they are. If you think otherwise, you may want to give an argument for your reasoning next time so we can discuss that. So far, you have just made assertions for which you have provided no argumentation or evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biblical texts cannot prove this event, so why should we waste our time further trying to get this point across?

It isn't possible because LNC is judging his worldview against others without trying to step out of his own. He is both the judge and the advocate. He can't really gage another's view without actually trying to shift the way he thinks about things. He can't do this because he doesn't recognize there are other ways of seeing things. He's trapped. We all are to some degree, but to be so entwined in one's belief, it's hard to gage the truth of another's. He's seeking absolute truth, somewhere, somehow.

 

I don't know what you mean by stepping out of one's worldview. How does one do that, and have you done that? If so, please explain how you did that and when. Just because a person cannot step out of his or her worldview, which I don't think is logically possible, doesn't mean that one cannot consider evidence objectively. You make a lot of assumptions about me and you have never, to my knowledge, even met me. How do you do that? What if I were to say that same about you, would you consider that fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but it doesn't mean that they believe without evidence, it simply means that we believe without having seen the risen Jesus. You are stretching it to imply that this means belief without proof or evidence. Paul lacked what you would call Pauline faith if it is as you describe it since Paul saw Jesus and believed after hearing the voice of Jesus and what many consider having seen Jesus.

 

How do you know? If he heard a voice, so what? What evidence (now I am replying like you do)?

 

 

How do you figure. That again seems to be an interpretation that is unsupported by the evidence. I think that we have greater evidence that the supernatural and spiritual realm exists than evidence that it does or could not.

 

Sorry, your evidence is found to be wanting....lacking....kaput.

 

 

Agnostic would mean that there is a possibility in your mind that God could exist, does it not? And, even if you were an atheist, that wouldn't mean that God doesn't exist, just that you wouldn't believe that he did.

 

Agnosticism is a statement about KNOWLEDGE of god, NOT belief: Humans don't have knowledge that god exists or god does not exist. That is the agnostic stance about god's existence. Edited to add: Yes, there is the possibility god could exist, we just don't know. There is also the possibility god does NOT exist.

 

 

 

I am not sure what you are getting at with your first statement, you will have to explain that to me. I don't see the universe as being perfect as I see evidence of sin within the universe.

 

I was referring to your belief about a perfect earth and the garden of eden existing.

 

How is the Judeo-Christian view inadequate and anti-life?

 

So you don't remember my views from previous posts? I'm not going to elaborate again, so here's an outline:

1.Heaven/hell

2.Sin/salvation

 

Aren't you curious about the origin of the universe? Most scientists believe that it had an origin and philosophers add weight to that argument as an infinite past regression is logically problematic, if not impossible.

 

Why don't you get the point of that post?

 

Are you saying that animals have a moral code? I am not averse to that explanation, but find it lacks a degree of support. We can look at behaviors of animals; however, we cannot read their intentions. Yes, animals seem to have some sort of rudimentary mind; however, the human mind is different by a vast degree. I don't think that you can produce any evidence that minds evolved as minds are immaterial entities. In other words, you don't have a fossil record. If you believe that humans are no different than animals, then you have not read much on human development or even looked around you. How many animals are able to think and develop thought like humans? How many animals have advanced the way that humans have? Your statement is uninformed.

 

You are the one who is "uninformed". Again, I believe it was Mriana that posted just one example of what scientists are discovering about non-human animal minds. It was how they have "thoughts about their thoughts". PAY ATTENTION!

 

The human mind and morals differ from other animals, but they are RELATED. The difference is, simply put, a difference of degree.

 

How do you know that God is merely a superhuman? In what way is God human (apart from the fact that he came down to take on human flesh)? Did God have a body before Jesus took one on? Did God exist before Jesus came to earth? How do you know that God is a mystery? Wouldn't that require knowledge of God to know this? How do you know that what we know about God is speculation, again this requires inside knowledge that you must explain. How do you know that God doesn't communicate with his creation? You assume a lot of knowledge in these statements that you deny to others.

 

The whole point is: NOBODY HAS KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. So, god is a mystery. A lack of knowledge doesn't mean possession of it! You are the one asserting what god is like. I was describing how your view looks to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.