Gyroscopic Investing

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: Not sure if any of you saw the "Cereal Defense" on It's Always Sunny, but they put a very amusing view of having faith not just for Christianity, but you need faith to believe in Evolution/etc. as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22bo6CKJcJM

Hilarious!

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: Not sure if any of you saw the "Cereal Defense" on It's Always Sunny, but they put a very amusing view of having faith not just for Christianity, but you need faith to believe in Evolution/etc. as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22bo6CKJcJM

Does this buffoon even know that two of those ancient scientists he called "Liars" and planted the word "Bitch" on were devout Christians as well as scientists (both Galileo and Newton). Especially Newton.

But I must admit that after watching this YouTube twice I don't think I understand which side of the debate this guy is parodying. Maybe these things become less clear with age?

MediumTex wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Re. Sufi-ism.  I studied Gurdjieff's teachings for quite a while - has a Sufi connection.  His system (as presented and/or modified by some others like Bennett and Ouspensky) has some very good points, especially for organizational development.  However, it also has many really bizarre points such as his reported "strengths" - like being able to levitate a cow from a distance.  I came to the conclusion he was mostly a quack and one strange dude, although he probably did really believe he had a mission.  One can learn from anyone if you keep an open mind - sometimes what to do, sometimes what not to do, sometimes just for entertainment.

http://ggurdjieff.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff

... Mountaineer

Assuming that he continues down the path he is on, do you think that the fellow above will go to Hell and suffer for eternity when he dies?

Gurdijeff has already passed.  And to address your question, that is God's business, not mine, and what ever I think has no impact on Gurdijeff's whereabouts.  I can only give you a Holy Scripture answer to your question.  This is what Jesus says:

John 14  6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote: Gurdijeff has already passed.  And to address your question, that is God's business, not mine, and what ever I think has no impact on Gurdijeff's whereabouts.  I can only give you a Holy Scripture answer to your question.  This is what Jesus says:

John 14  6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

... Mountaineer

It seems to me that the Scripture is clear enough that if you don't go through Jesus you don't get to God, and since the New Testament only has two places to go when you die, those who didn't get to God through Jesus must therefore be destined for the only other option, which is Hell.

I have gotten a lot of answers like the one you gave over the years, and it always seems strange that Christians are so uneasy about simply saying what their beliefs are about Heaven and Hell, and it basically boils down to if you are a Christian you are probably going to Heaven, and if you are not a Christian you will probably suffer in Hell for eternity.  Didn't Paul make it clear near the beginning of Romans that no one really has an excuse for not being a Christian because you should be able to figure out that Christianity is the correct way by simply looking at the world around you?

If I were a Christian who viewed the Bible as the mostly inerrant and infallible Word of God and I had a couple of friends who happened to be Jewish and Muslim, I might feel compelled to tell them: "Hey fellas, I really like you guys a lot and I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to you after you die, so do you think you might want to become Christians so that you won't have to spend all of eternity burning in Hell?"

I feel the same way about homosexuality and Christianity.  It seems to me like Christian pastors should be telling the gay people the same thing I might tell my Jewish and Muslim friend in the example above--i.e., "Look, we love everyone at this church and we are glad you came, but if you are gay we really want to encourage you to become straight because if you don't you will suffer for eternity in the worst place imaginable."  Isn't that what the Bible says?  In the Old Testament, wasn't homosexuality a capital offense?  What changed?  Was that part of the Jewish law wrong?  How is that possible if it came from God?

It was the rigidity of the Heaven/Hell ticketing process that was part of what finally pushed me away from Christianity as it is practiced in many churches, though ironically as I moved away from the rigid structures of Christian thought I felt that I understood Jesus and his message much more clearly.  IMHO, Jesus's criticism of organized religion because of the way that it filters, shapes, and manipulates divine will for its own purposes is equally valid today as it was back then.

Any belief system that I subscribe to makes me feel compelled to mine it all the way to its bottom so that I can understand it inside out.  As I did this with Christianity I began to sense two things: a lot of incoherence in the overall message, and a temptation to arrogance as I began to form the belief that I had a Golden Ticket to Heaven that many other people did not have.  It was only when the illusion of the Golden Ticket began to break down that my path to real understanding started, though I freely admit that life in a Golden Ticket to Heaven world is less complicated than the world I live in now.

A point I would like to make, though, is that I seek the truth for the purpose of determining what right action really looks like, NOT so that I can find a justification for indulging my sinful nature.  By focusing on Jesus's life and teachings, I feel like I understand better how to live and what attitude to have toward the people and world around me.  I truly don't care about Heaven and Hell and angels and demons and Baptists and Methodists and gays and straights.  Getting tangled up in all of that stuff is, to me, a huge waste of time and energy, but that's what religion becomes for many people--i.e, an endless process of telling other people they are not doing it right when it comes to their religious beliefs.

And isn't that what the Great Commission was?  Go out and find people who are not doing it right when it comes to religion and tell them the way they are supposed to be doing it.  To me, that just seems to be asking for trouble.

The problem is that the whole premise of the Great Commission is that Christians are right and the rest of the world is wrong, which just strikes me as really arrogant.  For example, if I don't even know anything about another religion, how can I say for certain that it's wrong?  Maybe that religion is to Christianity what Christianity was to Judaism--i.e., a new and improved version.  If that were the case, how do you think large Christian churches would react to the news that all of their religious infrastructure was being torn down by some weird new religious belief that was vaguely based on Christianity?  I'll bet they would oppose it just like the Jewish leaders opposed Jesus.

madbean2 wrote:

MediumTex wrote: And isn't that what the Great Commission was?  Go out and find people who are not doing it right when it comes to religion and tell them the way they are supposed to be doing it.  To me, that just seems to be asking for trouble.

I always thought there was something peculiar about the Great Commission if you accept the Orthodox teaching about eternal torment of unbelievers in hell. How were people supposed to know they were going to hell in the first place if nobody told them? Unless you belonged to a religion that taught this I don't see how it could be very self-evident. So why wasn't that the emphasis of the gospel message? Instead you accept the message and convert to Christ and only then do you find out it was a good thing you did because you would have ended up in hell with all the other unbelievers.

Never made sense to me and still doesn't.

I find the cross imagery to be similarly odd.  It seems to me that we should focus on Jesus's life, not his death.

It would be like building a JFK memorial with the dominant imagery being JFK's destroyed head and the rifle that was used to assassinate him, and the gift shop would be stocked with all manner of necklaces, bracelets, coffee cups, daily planners and stickers for your car window featuring quotes from JFK with images of his bloody head and the rifle that killed him underneath it.

MediumTex wrote: I find the cross imagery to be similarly odd.  It seems to me that we should focus on Jesus's life, not his death.

Been reading about the Gnostics lately and that just happens to be what they believed. They were purged as heretics, of course.

madbean2 wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I find the cross imagery to be similarly odd.  It seems to me that we should focus on Jesus's life, not his death.

Been reading about the Gnostics lately and that just happens to be what they believed. They were purged as heretics, of course.

I used to work with a woman who talked about going to church a lot.  I would try to engage her in conversation about Jesus's teachings and she always wanted to go back to the death and resurrection.  Finally, one day she just came out and said that she didn't really care that much about Jesus's teachings because "anyone can have teachings, but to be crucified and come back to life, now that's impressive."

I didn't know what to say to that.  Even if I tried to follow her own logic, her statement didn't make any sense to me because the teachings of a person who could come back from the dead wouldn't be just any old teachings.

It didn't surprise me that Jesus's teachings were of little interest to her, though.  She was kind of a dark person, and Jesus's calls to love your neighbor, be kind to people who hurt you, etc. probably wouldn't have made much sense to her anyway.

MediumTex wrote:

madbean2 wrote:

MediumTex wrote: And isn't that what the Great Commission was?  Go out and find people who are not doing it right when it comes to religion and tell them the way they are supposed to be doing it.  To me, that just seems to be asking for trouble.

I always thought there was something peculiar about the Great Commission if you accept the Orthodox teaching about eternal torment of unbelievers in hell. How were people supposed to know they were going to hell in the first place if nobody told them? Unless you belonged to a religion that taught this I don't see how it could be very self-evident. So why wasn't that the emphasis of the gospel message? Instead you accept the message and convert to Christ and only then do you find out it was a good thing you did because you would have ended up in hell with all the other unbelievers.

Never made sense to me and still doesn't.

I find the cross imagery to be similarly odd.  It seems to me that we should focus on Jesus's life, not his death.

It would be like building a JFK memorial with the dominant imagery being JFK's destroyed head and the rifle that was used to assassinate him, and the gift shop would be stocked with all manner of necklaces, bracelets, coffee cups, daily planners and stickers for your car window featuring quotes from JFK with images of his bloody head and the rifle that killed him underneath it.

Cross imagery:  focus is on what Jesus did for us - a salvation theme - Jesus' love for us theme.

Jesus' life focus:  focus is on how what to do, how to love your neighbor. 

Both are good and appropriate, only one however, gives eternal life.  My belief says if you do the first, the second follows automatically. 

I have to agree with something MT said in an earlier post.  I do believe that "Evangelicals" tend toward either pride or despair if they study seriously - pride when they succumb to arrogance and thinking they have all the "right" answers,  despair when they realize they can't do everything spelled out in infinite detail in the Law.  That is the problem (issue?) with Law focused belief systems.  Just my two cents worth.

... Mountaineer

MediumTex wrote: Finally, one day she just came out and said that she didn't really care that much about Jesus's teachings because "anyone can have teachings, but to be crucified and come back to life, now that's impressive."

From the perspective of a nonbeliever, that is in a nutshell how religion gets off the ground.

dualstow wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Finally, one day she just came out and said that she didn't really care that much about Jesus's teachings because "anyone can have teachings, but to be crucified and come back to life, now that's impressive."

From the perspective of a nonbeliever, that is in a nutshell how religion gets off the ground.

That is certainly how Christianity got off the ground (pun intended).  Christianity rests on the resurrection.  If Christ's resurrection is ever disproved, I suspect the religion is over for good.  However, the evidence is overwhelming it really happened - people have been trying unsuccessfully to disprove it for 2000 years and forcasted it for hundreds/thousands of years prior.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

dualstow wrote:

MediumTex wrote: Finally, one day she just came out and said that she didn't really care that much about Jesus's teachings because "anyone can have teachings, but to be crucified and come back to life, now that's impressive."

From the perspective of a nonbeliever, that is in a nutshell how religion gets off the ground.

That is certainly how Christianity got off the ground (pun intended).  Christianity rests on the resurrection.  If Christ's resurrection is ever disproved, I suspect the religion is over for good.  However, the evidence is overwhelming it really happened - people have been trying unsuccessfully to disprove it for 2000 years and forcasted it for hundreds/thousands of years prior.

... Mountaineer

Ok here we go again...

You have linked to some Christian apologists that have very, very loose evidence, hardly proof, of Jesus' resurrection.  Very self-referrential stuff (uses conflicing stories in the Bible to "prove" Jesus' resurrection).

If you have any source on this that you would consider the BEST form of "proof," I'd love to see it.  The closest thing I can recall was Desert posting a presentation by William Lane Craig.  I've listened to him in other debates recently and he is certainly the best empiricist and user of logic I've seen in religious circles, but by no means did he shut down debate, and often left opposing points unaddressed.

So if you can add to the empirical proof via some sources, that would be much-appreciated.  My apologies if you've posted them already.  I've tried to dive into it only to find it very shaky logic and weak empirical work combined with self-referential "evidence" to fill in the holes.

Mountaineer wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

madbean2 wrote: I always thought there was something peculiar about the Great Commission if you accept the Orthodox teaching about eternal torment of unbelievers in hell. How were people supposed to know they were going to hell in the first place if nobody told them? Unless you belonged to a religion that taught this I don't see how it could be very self-evident. So why wasn't that the emphasis of the gospel message? Instead you accept the message and convert to Christ and only then do you find out it was a good thing you did because you would have ended up in hell with all the other unbelievers.

Never made sense to me and still doesn't.

I find the cross imagery to be similarly odd.  It seems to me that we should focus on Jesus's life, not his death.

It would be like building a JFK memorial with the dominant imagery being JFK's destroyed head and the rifle that was used to assassinate him, and the gift shop would be stocked with all manner of necklaces, bracelets, coffee cups, daily planners and stickers for your car window featuring quotes from JFK with images of his bloody head and the rifle that killed him underneath it.

Cross imagery:  focus is on what Jesus did for us - a salvation theme - Jesus' love for us theme.

Jesus' life focus:  focus is on how what to do, how to love your neighbor. 

Both are good and appropriate, only one however, gives eternal life.  My belief says if you do the first, the second follows automatically. 

I see it the opposite way.

Since history is packed with people claiming to have supernatural powers, any time a supernatural claim is made about a historical figure, I always want to learn more about their lives to see if there is anything else about them outside of the supernatural claims that makes me want to look more closely at their lives.

To me, it's a tall order to ask someone to believe that a person was crucified, sat in the grave for three days, and then rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven and there is no record of it other than four accounts in the New Testament, all of which were written many years after the supposed event actually occurred.  OTOH, if you talk about Jesus's teachings, which I consider "self-validating", then you can talk about things you CAN confirm (e.g., if you are kind to others does that actually create a peaceful spirit?).

There are also practical questions about the resurrection like why, for example, would Josephus take the time to record tiny details about public life during that time (including a possible reference to Jesus's trial), but make no mention of the enormous event of a dead person coming back to life and flying into the sky.  Wouldn't you write about that if you were a historian?

If I heard about a dead guy who came back to life after three days and then flew into the sky, and my job was to record important events of the time, you can bet I would record that one.

As far as I know, though, there is no record anywhere by anyone outside the four gospels that talks about the resurrection.

Another thing that bugs me about the resurrection story is the people who are telling it in the gospels were writing decades after the event, and we don't even know who really wrote the gospels or how heavily they were edited before the earliest surviving copies were made.  Also, wasn't it common practice at the time for scribes to enhance stories that they were transcribing?

How would you react if I told you I had written a 100% factual story about a man who was executed in a small middle eastern country in 1981, and who came back to life after three days and ascended into the sky, and I told you I didn't actually witness it myself and there was no other record of the event anywhere outside of some vague folklore?  Would you bet your eternal soul on the accuracy of my story?  If so, why?

I just like Jesus's teachings because I can go out and try them out and see for myself whether they are true.  No faith required.  Once I see that the teachings are sound, that begins to prepare my mind for the possibility of believing something that God's own rules of nature say shouldn't happen (i.e., a decomposing corpse coming back to life and flying).

MediumTex wrote: As far as I know, though, there is no record anywhere by anyone outside the four gospels that talks about the resurrection.

Not to make the believer's case but I'm still a stickler for the Bible even though I'm no longer a believer. the first recorded witness to the resurrection was by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. This is believed to be an early creed that was being recited in churches as early as AD 55, about 25 years after the event. This was earlier than any of the gospels. It went...

Christ died / for our sins / according to the scriptures / and was buried
He was raised / on the third day / according to the scriptures / and appeared
To Peter / and to the twelve.

So that makes 5 Biblical witnesses.

madbean2 wrote:

MediumTex wrote: As far as I know, though, there is no record anywhere by anyone outside the four gospels that talks about the resurrection.

Not to make the believer's case but I'm still a stickler for the Bible even though I'm no longer a believer. the first recorded witness to the resurrection was by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. This is believed to be an early creed that was being recited in churches as early as AD 55, about 25 years after the event. This was earlier than any of the gospels. It went...

Christ died / for our sins / according to the scriptures / and was buried
He was raised / on the third day / according to the scriptures / and appeared
To Peter / and to the twelve.

So that makes 5 Biblical witnesses.

Isn't that hearsay?

Peter told Paul that this event occurred, right?

Since, however, we know that Peter and Paul didn't get along, especially in matters of theology, I would consider anything Peter told Paul of a supernatural nature to be suspect because Peter would have had such a powerful incentive to tell stories that made it appear that he was still Jesus's BFF even after Jesus had been crucified.

Isn't it also strange how Paul doesn't talk very much about Jesus the man in his letters?  It's really striking.  It's like Paul isn't even that familiar with Jesus's ministry.  He often talks about "The Christ" as if it were more of an idea than anything else.

MediumTex wrote: Isn't that hearsay?

Objection sustained.

Yes, it's all hearsay. I don't think anybody believes that any of the eyewitness accounts in the gospels were actually written by eyewitnesses and they came many years after Paul's writing. (Well, there may be some who believe that - possibly Mountaineer but I'll let him speak for himself).

Paul's writing just goes to show that belief in the resurrection had an early pedigree and wasn't a later invention.

madbean2 wrote: Yes, it's all hearsay. I don't think anybody believes that any of the eyewitness accounts in the gospels were actually written by eyewitnesses and they came many years after Paul's writing. (Well, there may be some who believe that - possibly Mountaineer but I'll let him speak for himself).

Otherwise it would just be hearsay.

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

dualstow wrote: From the perspective of a nonbeliever, that is in a nutshell how religion gets off the ground.

That is certainly how Christianity got off the ground (pun intended).  Christianity rests on the resurrection.  If Christ's resurrection is ever disproved, I suspect the religion is over for good.  However, the evidence is overwhelming it really happened - people have been trying unsuccessfully to disprove it for 2000 years and forcasted it for hundreds/thousands of years prior.

... Mountaineer

Ok here we go again...

You have linked to some Christian apologists that have very, very loose evidence, hardly proof, of Jesus' resurrection.  Very self-referrential stuff (uses conflicing stories in the Bible to "prove" Jesus' resurrection).

If you have any source on this that you would consider the BEST form of "proof," I'd love to see it.  The closest thing I can recall was Desert posting a presentation by William Lane Craig.  I've listened to him in other debates recently and he is certainly the best empiricist and user of logic I've seen in religious circles, but by no means did he shut down debate, and often left opposing points unaddressed.

So if you can add to the empirical proof via some sources, that would be much-appreciated.  My apologies if you've posted them already.  I've tried to dive into it only to find it very shaky logic and weak empirical work combined with self-referential "evidence" to fill in the holes.

Sorry, but I'm not accepting that monkey on my back.  If you don't believe the Scriptures and the thousands of years of evidence (note I do not use the word proof - you apparently use the word proof to shift what I said to your belief system - no go), I pose it is up to you to disprove them. 

Cheers!

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: That is certainly how Christianity got off the ground (pun intended).  Christianity rests on the resurrection.  If Christ's resurrection is ever disproved, I suspect the religion is over for good.  However, the evidence is overwhelming it really happened - people have been trying unsuccessfully to disprove it for 2000 years and forcasted it for hundreds/thousands of years prior.

... Mountaineer

Ok here we go again...

You have linked to some Christian apologists that have very, very loose evidence, hardly proof, of Jesus' resurrection.  Very self-referrential stuff (uses conflicing stories in the Bible to "prove" Jesus' resurrection).

If you have any source on this that you would consider the BEST form of "proof," I'd love to see it.  The closest thing I can recall was Desert posting a presentation by William Lane Craig.  I've listened to him in other debates recently and he is certainly the best empiricist and user of logic I've seen in religious circles, but by no means did he shut down debate, and often left opposing points unaddressed.

So if you can add to the empirical proof via some sources, that would be much-appreciated.  My apologies if you've posted them already.  I've tried to dive into it only to find it very shaky logic and weak empirical work combined with self-referential "evidence" to fill in the holes.

Sorry, but I'm not accepting that monkey on my back.  If you don't believe the Scriptures and the thousands of years of evidence (note I do not use the word proof - you apparently use the word proof to shift what I said to your belief system - no go), I pose it is up to you to disprove them. 

Cheers!

... Mountaineer

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The evidence for the extraordinary claims made in "Scripture" is anything but extraordinary in the positive direction; in fact, it is all self-serving hearsay, and can therefore be disregarded.

Of course, no one is going to argue you out of your religious beliefs, but that's all they are: beliefs.

Mountaineer wrote: Sorry, but I'm not accepting that monkey on my back.  If you don't believe the Scriptures and the thousands of years of evidence (note I do not use the word proof - you apparently use the word proof to shift what I said to your belief system - no go), I pose it is up to you to disprove them. 

Cheers!

... Mountaineer

It is never up to the skeptic of a supernatural event to disprove it.  The burden of proof involving any type of supernatural event is always on the one claiming that it happened.

As far as thousands of years of evidence, I don't think that there are thousands of years of evidence.  There were probably many people like Jesus out in the country preaching stuff that was not the official line of the Jewish faith of the time.  The Romans probably crucified quite a few of these country preachers whose followings got too excited about change.

And there is no secular record of any kind that talks about Jesus, other than one or two lines in Josephus's writings, and he could have been referring to any number of troublemakers.

I think that if you are a deep believer as Mountaineer is, you would do better to just say the whole thing is based on faith and that there is no proof concerning most of what the Bible talks about.  I don't understand these apologist-types going around as if they have bulletproof arguments when all they really have is a series of documents that they cite as proof of the divinity of those same documents.  You can't do that.  That's not how proof works.  A supernatural event is not proven just because a book says it occurred.

I want to make it clear that I think that Jesus's ministry is packed with great teachings and much wisdom.  I hate that people get so bogged down in the supernatural stuff when there is all of this other stuff that is clearly true, but no one wants to pay any attention to it because it consists of boring old rules for how to live a peaceful and happy life.  IMHO, that's the only reason anyone ought to be interested in religion in the first place, though.  I always thought of the supernatural stuff as window dressing, and I actually think that it weakens the underlying message because any supernatural claim implicitly suggests that the underlying story isn't impressive enough on its own and it needs to be jazzed up with something supernatural to make it seem more like something that God might do.

I also deeply relate to the position that sincere believers can find themselves in if the story starts to feel kind of frayed at the edges in their minds.  What are you supposed to do?  Your social and spiritual life is centered in church, and none of your fellow church members are going to want to hear you start talking about how the Bible is all allegory, etc.  There is a huge cost to some of these realizations and changes of heart.  It can be very lonely.

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: That is certainly how Christianity got off the ground (pun intended).  Christianity rests on the resurrection.  If Christ's resurrection is ever disproved, I suspect the religion is over for good.  However, the evidence is overwhelming it really happened - people have been trying unsuccessfully to disprove it for 2000 years and forcasted it for hundreds/thousands of years prior.

... Mountaineer

Ok here we go again...

You have linked to some Christian apologists that have very, very loose evidence, hardly proof, of Jesus' resurrection.  Very self-referrential stuff (uses conflicing stories in the Bible to "prove" Jesus' resurrection).

If you have any source on this that you would consider the BEST form of "proof," I'd love to see it.  The closest thing I can recall was Desert posting a presentation by William Lane Craig.  I've listened to him in other debates recently and he is certainly the best empiricist and user of logic I've seen in religious circles, but by no means did he shut down debate, and often left opposing points unaddressed.

So if you can add to the empirical proof via some sources, that would be much-appreciated.  My apologies if you've posted them already.  I've tried to dive into it only to find it very shaky logic and weak empirical work combined with self-referential "evidence" to fill in the holes.

Sorry, but I'm not accepting that monkey on my back.  If you don't believe the Scriptures and the thousands of years of evidence (note I do not use the word proof - you apparently use the word proof to shift what I said to your belief system - no go), I pose it is up to you to disprove them. 

Cheers!

... Mountaineer

Ah... my bad... "overwhelming evidence"... not proof.  To me, very few things can be actually proven.  Most things are just different degrees of inductive evidence... including science.

Since you've accepted that "overwhelming evidence" monkey on your back, we'd love to see it, beyond the stories in the Bible.

We're off the topic of Islam here, but on the subject of supernatural events this fellow here had millions of follwers (many more than Jesus had) who believe he had all sorts of supernatural powers. Isnt it funny how religious people scoff at reports of modern day miracles yet have no trouble believing in the ones written down by iron age goat herders....   

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Ok here we go again...

You have linked to some Christian apologists that have very, very loose evidence, hardly proof, of Jesus' resurrection.  Very self-referrential stuff (uses conflicing stories in the Bible to "prove" Jesus' resurrection).

If you have any source on this that you would consider the BEST form of "proof," I'd love to see it.  The closest thing I can recall was Desert posting a presentation by William Lane Craig.  I've listened to him in other debates recently and he is certainly the best empiricist and user of logic I've seen in religious circles, but by no means did he shut down debate, and often left opposing points unaddressed.

So if you can add to the empirical proof via some sources, that would be much-appreciated.  My apologies if you've posted them already.  I've tried to dive into it only to find it very shaky logic and weak empirical work combined with self-referential "evidence" to fill in the holes.

Sorry, but I'm not accepting that monkey on my back.  If you don't believe the Scriptures and the thousands of years of evidence (note I do not use the word proof - you apparently use the word proof to shift what I said to your belief system - no go), I pose it is up to you to disprove them. 

Cheers!

... Mountaineer

Ah... my bad... "overwhelming evidence"... not proof.  To me, very few things can be actually proven.  Most things are just different degrees of inductive evidence... including science.

Since you've accepted that "overwhelming evidence" monkey on your back, we'd love to see it, beyond the stories in the Bible.

But the Bible says it is the Word of God, and God wouldn't lie to us!
(Note: )

doodle wrote: We're off the topic of Islam here

Yes, we are, aren't we? Here we were trying to figure out Islam and we're back to figuring out Christianity.

Too bad we don't have a Muslim version of Mountaineer here to share his beliefs with us.

Continuing from the "Figuring out Islam" thread…

MediumTex wrote: I want to make it clear that I think that Jesus's ministry is packed with great teachings and much wisdom.  I hate that people get so bogged down in the supernatural stuff when there is all of this other stuff that is clearly true, but no one wants to pay any attention to it because it consists of boring old rules for how to live a peaceful and happy life.  IMHO, that's the only reason anyone ought to be interested in religion in the first place, though.  I always thought of the supernatural stuff as window dressing, and I actually think that it weakens the underlying message because any supernatural claim implicitly suggests that the underlying story isn't impressive enough on its own and it needs to be jazzed up with something supernatural to make it seem more like something that God might do.

I also deeply relate to the position that sincere believers can find themselves in if the story starts to feel kind of frayed at the edges in their minds.  What are you supposed to do?  Your social and spiritual life is centered in church, and none of your fellow church members are going to want to hear you start talking about how the Bible is all allegory, etc.  There is a huge cost to some of these realizations and changes of heart.  It can be very lonely.

My father-in-law just retired from being a Presbyterian pastor whose views sort of jibe with yours. He is a very serious intellectual fellow who sees the Bible as a collection of allegories, and thinks  that Jesus's act of salvation worked, and everyone everywhere through history is saved, no preconditions or magic incantations required, and that this leaves us free to focus on his message, which is pretty darn awesome. It's a very warm and compassionate view, but not very exciting, and his church lost members as they died and nobody took their place. I think it's instructive that the fastest-growing Christian sects (or even the only ones growing at all) are the fire-and-brimstone varieties that emphasize heaven and hell and a very simplistic, easy-to-digest belief structure. To me they seem like religion-lite, with very little of the substance and mystery and complex theology that some of the greatest thinkers in history have wrestled with. It's just believe-in-Jesus-and-go-to-heaven-don't-believe-in-Jesus-and-go-to-hell and that seems to take up an absolutely inordinate amount of the focus, which seems really odd to me from the perspective of a spiritual belief system, but perfectly understandable from the perspective of a social structure designed to appeal to simple people who have difficulty with complexity.

MediumTex wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: Sorry, but I'm not accepting that monkey on my back.  If you don't believe the Scriptures and the thousands of years of evidence (note I do not use the word proof - you apparently use the word proof to shift what I said to your belief system - no go), I pose it is up to you to disprove them. 

Cheers!

... Mountaineer

It is never up to the skeptic of a supernatural event to disprove it.  The burden of proof involving any type of supernatural event is always on the one claiming that it happened.

As far as thousands of years of evidence, I don't think that there are thousands of years of evidence.  There were probably many people like Jesus out in the country preaching stuff that was not the official line of the Jewish faith of the time.  The Romans probably crucified quite a few of these country preachers whose followings got too excited about change.

And there is no secular record of any kind that talks about Jesus, other than one or two lines in Josephus's writings, and he could have been referring to any number of troublemakers.

I think that if you are a deep believer as Mountaineer is, you would do better to just say the whole thing is based on faith and that there is no proof concerning most of what the Bible talks about.  I don't understand these apologist-types going around as if they have bulletproof arguments when all they really have is a series of documents that they cite as proof of the divinity of those same documents.  You can't do that.  That's not how proof works.  A supernatural event is not proven just because a book says it occurred.

I want to make it clear that I think that Jesus's ministry is packed with great teachings and much wisdom.  I hate that people get so bogged down in the supernatural stuff when there is all of this other stuff that is clearly true, but no one wants to pay any attention to it because it consists of boring old rules for how to live a peaceful and happy life.  IMHO, that's the only reason anyone ought to be interested in religion in the first place, though.  I always thought of the supernatural stuff as window dressing, and I actually think that it weakens the underlying message because any supernatural claim implicitly suggests that the underlying story isn't impressive enough on its own and it needs to be jazzed up with something supernatural to make it seem more like something that God might do.

I also deeply relate to the position that sincere believers can find themselves in if the story starts to feel kind of frayed at the edges in their minds.  What are you supposed to do?  Your social and spiritual life is centered in church, and none of your fellow church members are going to want to hear you start talking about how the Bible is all allegory, etc.  There is a huge cost to some of these realizations and changes of heart.  It can be very lonely.

With all due respect, I really do get where you "skeptics" are coming from.  I was there with you for a while.  Once again, I'm going to say it is not about proof; it is about evidence and the evidence for me is quite substantial.  Of course, you are free to want more than what is provided - that is human nature and we are by nature, since the fall, enemies of God who fight him tooth and nail.  I do say, if you guys are a tenth as smart as I believe you to be from your posts, I am humbled by your faith as your professed belief system requires much more faith than mine.  Just saying ......  And, one of the good things that happened to me was this thread.  It has prompted me to really thoroughly examine my beliefs, do a lot of reading and studying, become awed as how well the 66 books of the Bible written over a few thousand years by many different authors are interconnected and consistent, and really understand why Christianity remains so popular and widespread - it is founded on truth that is obvious to most who hear the message proclaimed.  Everything is a gift from God, including the people God has chosen to place in my path.  Thanks to all for stimulating discussions.  I will see you all on the other side of the unescapable divide - hopefully we will be assigned the same eternal path as our believing loved ones and we can laugh about these conversations.

... Mountaineer