|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: CrashFrog vs. Juhrahnimo: A friendly discussion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: But evolution is not based on testimony. It is based on physical evidence that exists today.
quote: I'm not sure which post you are talking about, but you have yet to produce an eyewitness account of the resurrected Jesus other than those accounts made by the disciples, or even written in the disciples name. The story of the Roman guards is found in the gospels but not in Roman records. Why is that?
quote: I WOULD give more credence to the claim. If unbiased people within the pharisees, Roman court, or amongst the Roman nobility also wrote accounts of their experiences with the resurrected Jesus it would lend much more credence to the story. Right now, all we have are accounts written in the name of disciples who had an interest in continuing their religion. Claims of Jesus being divine would go a long way towards continuing their religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Juhrahnimo (in Message 104): "Sorry, wasn't ignoring this post. There's been a flurry of posts that I've been answering lately."
Flurries are a commonly experienced phenomenum this time of year in the temperate zones of the Northern Hemisphere, and can be replicated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The majority only rules in elections, etc. I'm not saying that you have to believe it for the same reason; I was simply giving you the basis for my conclusions on the subject. Geez.
You tell God that he's not being accepted because he's acting like he doesn't exist. What would your recommendations be? I think it was said already, but: 1) Show up.
Would that be sufficient? I'm not saying I could arrange this or anything, but let's just talk this through a little. Anyone can claim to be God. It's as easy as saying so. I don't see how a demostration of godly power would suffice, either - how could you substantiate infinite power with finite actions? How could I know that the being before me had the nature of God, and wasn't simply concealing his true motives? Here's the thing; if there's any doubt that this is God, then it's not God. The thing that would convince me this was God would be that I wouldn't have to be convinced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
BTW, do you believe that George Washington threw a silver dollar across the Potomac?
quote:No you don't know where I'm going with this. As a young man George Washington threw a stone across the Rappahannock River. I found this information over 25 years ago while I was doing research for a short blurb on Washington for the base newspaper. (Quantico Sentry Feb 1979) I did a search on the web and found this Classroom Journal on the same subject. They included the reason the story is different today, which I did not include in my story.
One early writer took license with that story and said it was a dollar that Washington threw, and he said it was the Potomac, not the Rappahannock. I know this revelation is not earth shattering, but hopefully it will help you understand why people don't always choose to believe what someone else has written. We have two pieces of information. We have no way of knowing which is true or if either one is true. Same with the Bible. We have what the Bible says and we have what history or other pieces of documentation say. When these don't match, the average person has no way to check the information.
quote:The impression I get from you is that if people don't believe, then they have chosen to reject true information, not that they have found the accounts or evidence to be untrue and have rejected false information. A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Abshalom Inactive Member |
Sometimes we must ask where a myth-maker obtains his ideas when the stories are written well after the legend was established.
For example, the raising of the dead. Was that a first-hand account or simply the revamping of 2 Kings 4:8-36. And the multiplication of the loaves that fed the masses ... was that a retooling of 2 Kings 4:42-44?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
CK writes: 1. Appear to the world 2. THE END.
Well, that would be something we could write on a flipchart during a staff brainstorming session. But explain to me what that would look like? We need an operating plan. For example, does God appear to everyone at the same time, like say, noon tomorrow? Some people will be age 5, others will be age 45 or 65 or 85. Next year at this time, the 5 year old probably won't remember the occurrence, or at least it will seem like maybe an old dream (would 5 year olds get a "refresher-appearance" at a later date?) And what about 10 years from now? The babies born this weekend will not experience the event scheduled for noon tomorrow, so they will need to depend on written records from those who did. Or should God perhaps appear once per year to the world? Or once per day? And remember to build a factor into your operating plan that doesn't wake anybody out of their sleep since there are a couple dozen time zones in the world (I mean, people do need their sleep, ya know). And, should God appear as a sign in the sky? Or on TV? Or should God perhaps just schedule a time to meet with each individual person once in their lifetime and say "I'm God"? And at what age should that occur? Age 5 or 65? Or 45? Or what? I'm just trying to help with ideas. I'm wide open.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
LM writes:
I disagree completely. Rather it is based on the INTERPRETATION of physical evidence that exists today. But that belongs in an entirely different thread. But evolution is not based on testimony. It is based on physical evidence that exists today. You're asking some very intelligent questions, no doubt. Since you already discount any eyewitness reports, I can't help you further on that. But to your:
LM writes:
The reasons are obvious. That same reason why Bill Clinton has no mention of his "oval office extra-marital sexual activities" in his presidential library. The Jesus story would have been an embarrassment to the Romans, as well as the pharisees, Jewish leaders, and even the political leaders including Pilate. It was something much easier to ignore than address.
The story of the Roman guards is found in the gospels but not in Roman records. Why is that? LM writes:
Yes... the big "IF". If some other people would have written down what happened, then I would believe (I predict you would still discredit the writings as forgeries or plain B.S.). Or, if God would show himself to me, I would believe. Or, "If Jesus would come down from the cross" they would have believed back then. I doubt it. Jesus performed many miracles, healed the sick, cleansed the lepers, the blind saw, the lame walked, fed thousands with a handful of food, even the dead were raised. And they still didn't believe because they chose not to. Even the highly esteemed Pharisees saw the miracles of Jesus, and they refused to believe. If unbiased people within the pharisees, Roman court, or amongst the Roman nobility also wrote accounts of their experiences with the resurrected Jesus it would lend much more credence to the story. But let's not go back and forth on those items. Instead, respond to this:We have reliable records of the early Christians being persecuted and killed. WHY do you think they were persecuted and killed? And what do you think the CHRISTIANS thought when they were giving up their lives as they were being slaughtered? Where did their belief come from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
CF writes:
Crash, you're basically saying that there is nothing that would convince you. If God would appear before you and do some miracles, you would call them magician's tricks. Or maybe the exploitation of some new technology. Or maybe someone spiked your coffee with some kind of halucinogen. I don't see how a demostration of godly power would suffice, either - ...Ok, let's try your game; Say God appeared before you, but you doubted him. You test him by having him create a tiger out of thin air right in your living room. Would you believe him then? Ok, so give him another test then, like creating an instant earthquake, which he immediately does causing house to shake, the walls to crack and chunks of ceiling falling on you. Would you believe? Don't waste a post answering that, I'll just assume you still have a doubt and that the earthquake could have been a coincidence or "he" just had your house wired with explosives that he detonated via remote control. So test him again by having him launch you into outer space (no spacesuit or spaceship, just as you are) and take you to the planets and let you walk around for a while. Then take you on a hyper-speed trip to far-reaching galaxies and explain the secrets of the universe to you. Would you believe then? I doubt it. You would probably accuse him of having spiked your drink with something. Or what WOULD you believe without a doubt? You're saying you don't believe that God exists because he hasn't shown himself (your words: "acts like he doesn't exist"), but then you make the quote shown above. I don't understand what God would need to do to "act" like he DOES exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
PD writes:
WHAT doesn't match? What non-matching documentation are you talking about in regard to Jesus?
We have what the Bible says and we have what history or other pieces of documentation say. When these don't match...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
Abs writes:
Revamping? Perhaps the account was simply true? Could that be a possibility? And the feeding of masses; could it be that the disciples simply witnessed this event? Could that be? If an investigator approaches a story with your kind of attitude, he'll find all kinds of reasons to discredit the story. Countless people have been jailed or executed due to this approach. When you use the terms "myth-maker" and "legend" in ref. to a story, how will else will you view that story? You've already made up your mind before you start.
Sometimes we must ask where a myth-maker obtains his ideas when the stories are written well after the legend was established. For example, the raising of the dead. Was that a first-hand account or simply the revamping of 2 Kings 4:8-36. And the multiplication of the loaves that fed the masses ... was that a retooling of 2 Kings 4:42-44?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
My mistake, sorry. I thought you agreed there were no witnesses, but had it wrong, Seems like you're on top of this thread, so I'll scoot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crash, you're basically saying that there is nothing that would convince you. If God would appear before you and do some miracles, you would call them magician's tricks. Or maybe the exploitation of some new technology. Or maybe someone spiked your coffee with some kind of halucinogen. Well, yes. All those things are possible; and moreover, they're considerably more likely than me actually being in the presence of an infinite God. Presumably God, however, would find a way to put it immediately beyond all question who he is; hence what I said - the way I would know it was God would be the fact that I wouldn't have to be convinced in the first place.
You would probably accuse him of having spiked your drink with something. Again, all those things are much more likely than being faced with the actual God. No finite display of ability can substantiate infinite power. So the question isn't "why are Crash's standards so impossibly high"; the question is why your standards are apparently so low that a drug in your drink could convince you God was talking to you.
I don't understand what God would need to do to "act" like he DOES exist? Oh, that. That's a slightly different question; to convince me that God exists, all that would have to happen would be for God to unequivocably act in the world. As it is, if God acts in the world, he does so in a way industinguishable from random chance. So he might as well not be acting at all. In fact it's impossible to say that he is acting, for that reason. It's not necessary for God to show himself to me; I don't care about seeing him. I care about what God does; what good is a deity who does nothing? What would convince me that God existed would be God acting like God, instead of acting like he doesn't exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
"Myth" doesn't mean "lie", you know. Although we use it that way, myths aren't lies.
They're just frameworks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4677 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
The Jesus story would have been an embarrassment to the Romans, as well as the pharisees, Jewish leaders, and even the political leaders including Pilate. It was something much easier to ignore than address. Are you then claiming that this is the reason there is no secular record of Jesus? That there was a conspiracy of silence to cover up these events and only decades later with the writing of the gospels was an oral transmission commited to documents? And how is this then to be distinguished from a credulous mythologized legend gaining growing popular support? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
NOOOOO!!! Please don't leave me!!!! I'm outnumbered!!! If I don't make it, I'll need you to send the remains to my wife!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024