|
Author
|
Topic: Choosing a faith
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
Message 1433 of 3694 (902636)
11-25-2022 8:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1421 by Phat
11-25-2022 2:37 PM
|
|
Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
GDR writes: I guess that you might say I was a social Christian. I accepted the gospel as such but largely rejected the supernatural. However, it just wasn't anything I thought about much if at all. Phat writes: In contrast, it was the supernatural itself (or my perception of "it" ) that cemented my belief. It seems that you are somewhere in the middle of ringo and my argument. You believe in the message, as he claims to do. He rejects Jesus as a historical figure, seeing him as an Elmer Gantry type of amalgamation. He argues scripture with me because he knows it well, but his only defense as to why he even brings Jesus(as a character in a book) up is because I claim to believe in Him. Most of the EvC peanut gallery is either publically atheist (due to lack of evidence) or secular humanist (since it is the *right* thing to do... ) Being a social Christian, you (who have/has a good loving heart, by the way) believe in an overall message of love and sacrifice. And to be honest, my grumpy and selfish arguments are NOT a good advertisement for Jesus being real.
Hi Phat If you re-read my post you'll see that I was talking about the past when I consider that I was essentially agnostic. Actually, I have spent a fair bit of time on this forum arguing for intelligence outside of our material world. Cheers
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1421 by Phat, posted 11-25-2022 2:37 PM | | Phat has seen this message but not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1434 of 3694 (902638)
11-25-2022 8:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1422 by PaulK
11-25-2022 2:55 PM
|
|
Re: What does God want of Us
PaulK writes: Under your preferred hypothesis the author of Luke directly copied from the Gospel of Matthew. Not really. As I said Matthew's Gospel would be a source but hardly the only source. He travelled with Paul and spent time with the apostles in Jerusalem including Peter. He would have had input from numerous sources.
PaulK writes: What is wrong with the one we’ve been discussing? The signal to flee being changed from pagan worship in the Temple (which would set off a rebellion) to armies surrounding Jerusalem (after things have already started to go badly for the revolt).
Isn't that pretty nit picky? The point was that a rebellion would bring about a Roman response and so be aware so that you can get to safety before things really go south. If it helps you to pick one of the several contradictions then so be it.
PaulK writes: Since all the Daniel 9 references in the Olivet Discourse refer to events after the fall of Babylon then you must be wrong. Your Isaiah reference is about the fall of Babylon. The Olivet Discourse is a warning about what the future will be as a result of violent revolution and Jesus is simply saying that it will be like the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple to the Babylonians except this time by the Romans. Yes He does use the apocalyptic language from Isaiah 13 with sun darkened and sky falling to help make the point.
PaulK writes: In my view - which is consistent with the text - the Temple will be destroyed as part of God’s intervention. I think the Romans pulled that off all on their own.
PaulK writes: Or - more consistent with Daniel - that a new and better Temple with a new priesthood will be established. Sure, but Jesus changed the whole paradigm that didn't limit God to a specific location, but that He was in the hearts of those that love Him.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1422 by PaulK, posted 11-25-2022 2:55 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1435 of 3694 (902639)
11-25-2022 8:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1427 by Tangle
11-25-2022 4:02 PM
|
|
Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
Tangle writes: A theologian is, by definition, predisposed to a supernatural viewpoint and isn't necessarily concerned with historicity. For generations they've got away with talking to themselves; finally there's a few doing more robust work. I agree. We are finally looking at things in the context of the time and era. It is becoming a very different church than it was as little as 25 years ago.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1427 by Tangle, posted 11-25-2022 4:02 PM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1457 of 3694 (902907)
11-28-2022 3:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1436 by PaulK
11-26-2022 1:37 AM
|
|
Re: What does God want of Us
GDR writes: Not really. As I said Matthew's Gospel would be a source but hardly the only source. PaulK writes: Yes really. If the author of Luke is copying material from elsewhere then a difference is a change. Even if the author of Luke got it from some hypothetical alternate source. Moreover the fact that an event that did not happen is replaced with one that did is evidence of after-the-fact knowledge,
Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. Both of them spent time in Jerusalem with the disciples, quite possibly after Matthew, (possibly in its Hebrew form), assuming that there was an earlier Hebrew version), had been written. Luke and Paul would likely gotten a bit of a different take on things that what Matthew had when he wrote his Gospel. Also Paul would have had a effect on what Luke wrote. For that matter it might just be in the translations.
PaulK writes: Only to someone who wants to throw it out. Obviously it is quite a significant difference - especially to anyone who tries to follow the advice, delaying the decision to flee by - in the event - years. The point is simply to be careful and and be ready to head for the hills when it starts to look dicey. It is simply the writers putting their own words to what Jesus had said.
PaulK writes: Not if you follow Luke. The revolt started in 66AD, the Roman response force arrived in 67AD and the Siege of Jerusalem began in 70AD. Do you really think people in Judea were safe right up until then? It was an unsafe world in general. The point was to know that the whole thing would end badly, and so at some point you want to get to a place of safety at whatever time that it seemed prudent to the individual. There was really only two main points. 1/A Jewish revolt was going to end very badly. 2/Know point 1 and act accordingly.
GDR writes: The Olivet Discourse is a warning about what the future will be as a result of violent revolution and Jesus is simply saying that it will be like the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple to the Babylonians except this time by the Romans. PaulK writes: Obviously that is your opinion, but that doesn’t really answer my point that the text does not support it. Neither Daniel 9, nor your Isaiah reference have any mention of the Babylonian siege. Nor is there any explicit reference. So where do you get this idea from? The Isaiah passage was written prior to the Babylonian and would have been a warning about what would likely happen. Daniel was written about 4 centuries after the Babylonian destruction. The point is that both of these passages were written about major pollical and military upheaval. Matthew and Luke reference the apocalyptic wording of those books, making it clear that this is about an earthly event and not about end times.
PaulK writes: So your basis for claiming that the text means that the Romans will destroy the Temple is that the Romans did destroy the Temple. Obviously if it is neither a supernatural prediction nor written after the fact that cannot be valid. I keep repeating this but I do not claim that this was a supernatural prediction. It would be similar to me predicting that Canada will win the World Cup in 2026. (Jesus' prediction would have had a lot more to recommend it though.  ) There were several factions advocating for a violent revolution to rid Israel of the Romans. No doubt Jesus wouldn't be alone in taking the usually unspoken view that a rebellion would not go well. Jesus was unafraid to voice that opinion which was just one of the ways that He was making enemies in that world.
PaulK writes: You may believe that, but Daniel has the Temple reconsecrated (and sacrifices resuming) and there is evidence that Jesus did talk of rebuilding it, and there is nothing in the text of the Discourse that rules it out. It is only the Herodian Temple buildings that are to be destroyed. Yes it was rebuilt by Herod and it was worse than ever. The point was that the Jewish belief was that the Temple was the dwelling place of God. Jesus claimed God didn't dwell in a building but in Him and in those that follow the Father's way.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1436 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2022 1:37 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1463 of 3694 (902916)
11-28-2022 4:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1437 by Tangle
11-26-2022 3:33 AM
|
|
Re: What does God want of Us
Tangle writes: I glad you noticed. I'm trying to show you that there are properly researched and evidenced alternative views available that form totally different but equally reasonable conclusions about the historicity of Jesus. You don't have to agree with them, I'm just trying to make the point that the historical evidence that Jesus actually existed at all is incredibly weak, it's certainly not anything like the certainty taught to the laity by their religious institutions. Here is another overview on the historicity of Jesus. It pretty much deals with it. We are just going to disagree I guess.
New World Encyclopaedia on the Historicity of Jesus Tangle writes: By definition, there can not be a theist writer that does not believe in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ can there? Of course. Ever hear of Islam, Hindus and multiple other theistic beliefs.
Tangel writes: Richard Carrier says exactly the same - almost everything in the literature written about Jesus as a myth is nonsensical, non-scholarly garbage. He claims that his book is the first peer reviewed work written by a real historian properly examining the evidence. Whether you accept Carrier's arguments or not, if you read his books, no reasonable person could deny its scholarship. This seems to be a reasonable summary of the state of play today quote: The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory,[1][q 1] is the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology", possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact".[2] Alternatively, in terms given by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, "the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."[q 2] In contrast, the mainstream scholarly consensus holds that Jesus was a historical figure who lived in 1st-century Roman Palestine, and that he was baptized and was crucified.[3][4][5][6][q 3] Beyond that, mainstream scholars have no consensus about the historicity of the other major details of the gospel stories, or on the extent to which the Pauline epistles and the gospels replaced the historical human Jesus with a religious narrative of a supernatural "Christ of faith".[q 4] Ok lets' use your site. You quoted Bart Ehrman. Just a note of interest. I agree that Jesus was not about forming a new religion but that it was His hope that He could reform Judaism. From your site.
quote:
American independent scholar[309] Richard Carrier (born 1969) reviewed Doherty's work on the origination of Jesus[310] and eventually concluded that the evidence favored the core of Doherty's thesis.[311] According to Carrier, following Couchoud and Doherty, Christianity started with the belief in a new deity called Jesus,[q 14] "a spiritual, mythical figure".[q 15] According to Carrier, this new deity was fleshed out in the gospels, which added a narrative framework and Cynic-like teachings, and eventually came to be perceived as a historical biography.[q 14] Carrier argues in his book On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt that the Jesus figure was probably originally known only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture, which were then crafted into a historical figure to communicate the claims of the gospels allegorically. Those allegories were subsequently believed as fact during the struggle for control of the Christian churches of the first century.[312] Citing the methodological failure of the criteria of authenticity and asserting a failure of the "entire quest for criteria", Richard Carrier writes, "The entire field of Jesus studies has thus been left without any valid method."
and now from Ehrman again from your site:
quote:
In his book Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman surveys the arguments "mythicists" have made against the existence of Jesus since the idea was first raised at the end of the 18th century. Regarding the lack of contemporaneous records for Jesus, Ehrman notes that no comparable Jewish figure is mentioned in contemporary records either and there are mentions of Christ in several Roman works of history from only decades after the death of Jesus.[15] He adds that the authentic letters of the apostle Paul in the New Testament were likely written within a few years of Jesus' death and that Paul likely personally knew James, the brother of Jesus. Ehrman writes that although "our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems ... written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors", they "can be used to yield historically reliable information". He adds, "With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul)", which he says is "pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind".[374] Ehrman dismisses the idea that the story of Jesus is an invention based on pagan myths of dying-and-rising gods, maintaining that the early Christians were primarily influenced by Jewish ideas, not Greek or Roman ones,[374][15] and repeatedly insisting that the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus is not seriously considered at all by historians or experts in the field.[15]
More from Ehrman from this site. Richard Carrierquote:
New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman writes that Carrier is one of only two scholars with relevant graduate credentials who argues against the historicity of Jesus.[86] Discussing Carrier's theory that some Jews believed in a "humiliated messiah" prior to the existence of Christianity, Ehrman criticizes Carrier for "idiosyncratic" readings of the Old Testament that ignore modern critical scholarship on the Bible.[87] Ehrman concludes by saying "[w]e do not have a shred of evidence to suggest that any Jew prior to the birth of Christianity anticipated that there would be a future messiah who would be killed for sins—or killed at all—let alone one who would be unceremoniously destroyed by the enemies of the Jews, tortured and crucified in full public view. This was the opposite of what Jews thought the messiah would be."[88] Ehrman has also publicly addressed Carrier's use of Bayes' Theorem, stating that "most historians simply don't think you can do history that way." He said he only knows of two historians who have used Bayes' Theorem, Carrier and Richard Swinburne, and noted the irony of the fact that Swinburne used it to prove Jesus was raised from the dead. Ehrman rejected both Carrier and Swinburne's conclusions, but conceded that he was unqualified to assess specifics about how they applied the theorem. "I'm not a statistician myself. I've had statisticians who tell me that both people are misemploying it, but I have no way of evaluating it.
I am not a theologian, I'm not a historian or a scholar of any variety for that matter. In some ways this is like the theory of evolution. I believe it as the vast majority of those that study it do. In this case, although I have a pre-conceived bias, I see that the vast majority of those qualified reject the work of Carrier.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1437 by Tangle, posted 11-26-2022 3:33 AM | | Tangle has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1464 of 3694 (902928)
11-28-2022 5:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1440 by Percy
11-26-2022 12:40 PM
|
|
Re: What does God want of Us
Percy writes: But those people aren't making up stories of God-directed genocide, stoning and slavery. They're getting them from your book. You should create a new Bible called The Word According to GDR that gathers all the portions of the Bible you adhere to. It would be less than 10% as long as the actual Bible. I'll try this again. Firstly I see the Bible as a 66 book library, written within different times and cultures, that taken together from a history of the progressive human understanding of God, with the narrative, up to then, climaxing in Jesus. The early understanding was heavily influenced by the surrounding cultures and their deities. The Gospels were very much focused on the renewal of Judaism, the reformation of the Temple and Jesus' message of love and non-violent resistance in dealing with the Romans. The Epistles were about establishing the Christian communities and after the resurrection there was more focus on the next life than there had been. I know you argue that that thinking is circular as the place I learn about Jesus is in the Bible. However, it isn't as I'm not using it to prove anything. I accept, at the very least, the essential message of love, forgiveness, kindness etc that Jesus espoused and I also believe that God resurrected Him.
Percy writes: r what we believe about our faith. You and Faith are both Christians in the way that Liz Cheney and Donald Trump are both Republicans. Faith and I are a long way apart although I believe that she has a good heart and means well. I think the big difference is that her Christian focus is on an inerrant Bible while my focus is on Jesus as the one who has perfectly imaged God for us. I remember once writing on this forum, in a reply to her, quoting the "Sermon on the Mount" to oppose some OT position of hers. Her reply was "well, you would use the Sermon on the Mount" as a criticism.
Percy writes: When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason. Sure, but I would just argue that the "God meme' or "the still small voice of God" reaches out to all of us. That part has nothing to do with religion.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1440 by Percy, posted 11-26-2022 12:40 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1629 by Percy, posted 12-23-2022 9:51 AM | | GDR has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1473 of 3694 (903029)
11-30-2022 4:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1458 by PaulK
11-28-2022 3:31 PM
|
|
Re: What does God want of Us
PaulK writes: No, if Luke was copied from Matthew, as you believe, it was from a Greek copy of the Matthew we have. The rest doesn’t change that, I simply said that it might have been from a Hebrew version of Matthew. Although I think that a Hebrew version existed I agree that it could well be that it never existed. I think it makes sense as it is targeted at a Jewish audience and that later Matthew would add a Greek version for a broader audience. Also, I see Luke as using Matthew as an important source for his Gospel I don't see as being the sole source.
PaulK writes: Do you really think that things only started “looking dicey” for the Jews when the Romans began to besiege Jerusalem? Because that is what you are saying. I didn't say that and I don't think that to be the case.
Paulk writes: So Luke would be giving very bad advice from your point of view. Personally I'd be well entrenched in the hills before it got to that point.
PaulK writes: The Isaiah passage is expressly about God destroying Babylon. And using the Medes to do it. o. Your point was that Jesus meant that the Romans would destroy the Temple and you “knew’ this because Jesus was somehow referencing the Babylonian destruction of the Temple. You insisted on that even after I pointed out that the references discussed so far do not include the Babylonian destruction at all. And it seems that you know of no such references.
This is way off the point. The point was simply saying that the 2nd Temple would be destroyed like the 1st one if they went ahead with a militant rebellion. It isn't the point again, but here is a wiki page on the 1st Temple. Solmoan's Temple Here is a quote from it. quote:
Solomon's Temple, also known as the First Temple (Hebrew: בֵּית-הַמִּקְדָּשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן, Bēṯ hamMīqdāš hāRīʾšōn, transl. 'First House of the Sanctum'), was the Temple in Jerusalem between the 10th century BCE and c. 587 BCE. According to the Hebrew Bible, it was commissioned by Solomon in the United Kingdom of Israel before being inherited by the Kingdom of Judah in c. 930 BCE. It stood for around four centuries until it was destroyed by the Neo-Babylonian Empire during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, which occurred under the reign of Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar
PaulK writes: Which of course was part of my point Since you don’t claim that it was a supernatural prediction, your argument that Jesus must have meant that the Romans would destroy the Temple because the Romans did destroy the Temple can’t be justified on that ground. Which leaves only the possibility that the claim originated after the destruction. Otherwise the fact that the Romans did destroy the Temple is irrelevant to the interpretation of the passage. No. It was part of Jesus' polemic opposing an armed rebellion. Jesus predicted that this was going to happen, and when it did, it would vindicate and affirm His message of peace and love and then they would understand it in relation to Daniel 7 where we see Him coming to the Father, with the establishment of the Kingdom and with Jesus as King. The Kingdom would be the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew or the Kingdom of God in the other Gospels, and was made up of those that followed His ways of p[eace and love. If it was written after 66AD,. let alone 70AD, it would be then meaningless as it would clearly be contrived.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1458 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2022 3:31 PM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1474 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2022 5:24 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1475 of 3694 (903032)
11-30-2022 7:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1462 by Stile
11-28-2022 4:25 PM
|
|
Re: How can ultimate purpose come from anyone else, especially a God?
Stile writes: I'm not sure how to read that. Do you mean "Stile's out to lunch... atheists hold their beliefs due to a personal conviction and would never change their thoughts."? -in which case... I think you're wrong, for the vast majority of atheists Or do you mean "Ah, I see now, I originally thought atheists held their beliefs the way I hold mine, but perhaps they don't..."?
Maybe you are seeing more in this than I had intended. I think that most atheists, including those on this forum, would say that they don't know if a higher intelligence responsible for life exists or not. They simply believe that such an entity doesn't exist. I and other theists do believe that such an entity exists. In both cases it is a belief, and I'm not trying to make an equivalence between the two beliefs.
Stile writes: Yes, many atheist-bashers seem to push this really, really hard. It's easier to hate on something if you cram a bunch of negative things into the same box/idea. I don't see many atheists actually ascribing to this, though... The closest I've seen is atheists actually saying they believe only the material exists... because nothing beyond the material has ever been shown to exist. Therefore, they tend to assume that all things have a materialistic-based answer... since those are the only answers that have ever worked for any question that's ever been answered before.
No problem with that, although I certainly don't see myself as an atheist basher, I simply think that their atheistic conclusions are wrong.
Stile writes: Personal conviction says: 1. I believe THIS. 2. Nothing can change my mind. Evidence based says: 1. I'll assume THIS based on what's previously happened. 2. I'll change my mind when you show me something different. In day-to-day life, the two are almost identical. The differences only pop up when something new appears and that "new thing" goes against their previous beliefs/assumptions, but not even in the beginning. Only later. Evidence-based says: I wonder why that happened... what can I do to learn about it? I'm not changing my previous assumptions until I can show that something new really did happen. Personal-Conviction-based says: I know why that happened. I'm not changing my beliefs. At this point, the two are still acting exactly the same. Neither has changed their current course of actions. It's only the reasoning that's different. Once something's shown and identified, though... that's where the difference comes in: Evidence-based says: Oops. Guess I was wrong about that, I'll have to change and account for this new information. Personal-Conviction-based says: I know why that happened, this explanation doesn't make sense. I'm not changing my beliefs. I think that you are making something out to be black and white but I'd suggest that there is disagreement on what constitutes evidence, at least in this case. Something as simple Descartes view that I think, therefore I am. We look at a world that can be beautiful or ugly, with love and hate, with peace and war etc. It is evidence of something. I find that the idea of an intelligence behind that is strongly in favour of the existence of a creative intelligence, whereas my interaction with you guys leads me to think that you don't even see that as evidence at all. We don't agree as to what constitutes evidence so it isn't as black and white as you seem to maintain.
Stile writes: You can find whatever you'd like. The evidence paints a different picture. There is nothing we know or identify about this existence that doesn't have a materialistic answer. People have been pushing and pushing and pushing for non-material answers for thousands of years. But they're always shown to be wrong. Or else they just push to a smaller and smaller area of "we don't know yet." At some point, if you're interested in "truth and knowledge," it's just reasonable to pick the side that's making the most progress in that field. Sure scientific knowledge has expanded greatly and we now can explain lightning and its randomness. for example. Evolution did away with the idea of instant creation but the point is now how a deity did it, but whether or not a deity is ultimately responsible. There is no evidence one way or the other. For example I want to buy a dozen eggs. My plan is to do so and the means is by driving to the store. If a deity has a plan for life to develop we would not see the plan, but what we can often see is the means of how the plan was implemented. Science examines the means but the plan is beyond material examination.
GDR writes: I find that our existence from a completely material source requires an outside intelligence. Stile writes: You can find whatever you'd like. The evidence paints a different picture. There is nothing we know or identify about this existence that doesn't have a materialistic answer. People have been pushing and pushing and pushing for non-material answers for thousands of years. But they're always shown to be wrong. Or else they just push to a smaller and smaller area of "we don't know yet." At some point, if you're interested in "truth and knowledge," it's just reasonable to pick the side that's making the most progress in that field. But the material is all we have to deal with., so all we can ever have is material answers. We have an intelligent mind responsible for our existence or we don't. We can only examine the material which tells us nothing about whether or not we have an intelligent origin or a mindless one. If we can only examine material evidence then disregard philosophical or theological thought then the inevitable conclusion is a mindless origin.
Stile writes: Well, except for when things are based on evidence. Then it's all about facts and extrapolation using our tools with the best track-record of identifying the unknown. One has a terrible track record for identifying truth and knowledge. The other has a fantastic track record. I don't really see it as much of a competition. Sure, because the one has the whole material world to work with, and when we only consider the material, then the other has nothing to deal with.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1462 by Stile, posted 11-28-2022 4:25 PM | | Stile has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1479 by Stile, posted 12-01-2022 9:15 AM | | GDR has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1476 of 3694 (903033)
11-30-2022 7:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1465 by Tangle
11-28-2022 6:01 PM
|
|
Re: What does God want of Us
Tangle writes: I'll say this again and as often as you use this "argument". The overwhelming majority of writers on the historicity of Jesus are Christians. It is impossible for a Christian to come to the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist so any Christian writing about the historicity of Christ is not going to say he never existed now is he? This is not the case for atheists, an atheist can accept the existence of Jesus without accepting that he was anything to do with the supernatural. Erhman is is an atheist as far as belief goes. Additionally almost all the writers on the historicity of Jesus are not historians - they're theologians, clergy and apologists. Most are preaching or doing literary criticism, not history. What evidence do you have to support this? I imagine though that you are correct as people study what they are interested in.
Tangle writes: The more you read about how the bible was compiled, redacted, forged and generally interfered with over the years the more you realise how utterly preposterous the entire edifice of Christianity is. I've just been reading about Christians destroying embarrassing gospels in the Middle Ages, How can anyone take this stuff seriously, it's quite plainly a pure human construct?
I take it very seriously. Also, I'm not concerned about some of the things in the Bible because I recognize the fallibilities of the humans that recorded it. As I said ,I understand the Bible to be a narrative of the progressive understanding of God in the Bible. My views are not inconsistent with many Christian scholars. I am largely on the same page as N T Wright, Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, John Polkinghorne etc. That statement is simply to point out that I am not alone in my views, which is not meant to be a statement about their accuracy.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1465 by Tangle, posted 11-28-2022 6:01 PM | | Tangle has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1478 by Tangle, posted 12-01-2022 3:37 AM | | GDR has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1477 of 3694 (903034)
11-30-2022 8:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1470 by Percy
11-30-2022 12:49 PM
|
|
Re: What does God want of Us
Percy writes: You just restated, though at greater length, your approach of only accepting the parts of the Bible you like. I know your answer is that you accept both the good and the bad of the Bible, but you have not been able to defend this claim, and you have often explicitly rejected bad parts of the Bible,
Sure, because my views are based on the Jesus of the Bible and I understand it all through that lens. I still disagree that the reasoning is circular. Yes, I look to the Gospels to understand that Jesus is about peace and love. These 4 Gospels are account written by men that form a partial biography of Jesus and of His message. The rest of the Bible is the remaining 62 books written by, (with the exception of Acts), by different authors in different times and situations. However I can't defend the claim as all I have is my personal experience and conclusions drawn from that, what is written in the Scriptures, and what others have written of their Scriptural understandings. All of that becomes belief without any material evidence to support them.
Percy writes: The entire emphasis of Christian thought throughout history has been on the afterlife. Certainly a lot of that is true but there also the faith has led to many very positive social changes. Having read many more current Christian authors I see the church moving away from that and is more concerned with how we enact God's command to love our neighbour in the here and now. My position in saying that this is the life I can do something to serve God's message of love with, and yes I do believe that there is life to come but that isn't something I should worry about. I'll let God deal with it and I trust in His perfect judgement. As Paul says, "judge not that you be not judged". Here is a great quote from CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce'. quote:
That's what we all find when we reach this country. (heaven) We've all been wrong. That's the great joke. There's no need to go pretending the one was right. After that we begin living"
I know that I see the a glass darkly and I'm content with that.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1470 by Percy, posted 11-30-2022 12:49 PM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1639 by Percy, posted 12-25-2022 12:39 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1485 of 3694 (903050)
12-01-2022 6:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1472 by Percy
11-30-2022 1:27 PM
|
|
Re: What does God want of Us
Percy writes: Now you're just playing word games with "worship". We all know what worship means in a religious context. OK, but the point of worship as I said earlier in this thread is not for God but for me. I often lead the prayers of the people in our Anglican church as a lay person. I usually end with this. "We pray Lord that our lives will model the life to come, when you will bring about the resurrection of all things, in a renewed world, where the wolf lies down with the lamb, and with true joy and peace for all. With the power of your Holy Spirit, may we be Christ like people, living lives of Christ like love." Worship is for me , to increase my understanding of God, but more importantly, to hopefully nurture my heart to serve God by reflecting his love for all of creation into our world. It is not about trying to stroke God's ego or for looking for some favour from God.
Percy writes: You wrote this a couple weeks ago, so it should seem new as you reread it now, and it should be self-evident how this is still a non-answer. You're selecting which portions of the Bible to accept based on what you see in Jesus, but what you know about Jesus is from the Bible. That's as circular as can be. You're only fooling yourself if you think your 2 Timothy argument is analogous or relevant.
How do we learn about any historical figure? We read about him/her in a book that someone wrote. I learn bout Jesus in 4 books that happen to be in a library of 66 books. What do you know about Plato that didn't come from a book? Is that circular?
GDR writes: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.” (Lewis) Percy writes: I see Christianity, too, if by that Lewis means Christians and Christian churches and Christian iconography and Christian books and so forth. There is no doubt that Christianity exists. But how is any of that evidence of the truth of Christianity? But if "seeing Christianity" is just a synonym for believing it then he's just saying the same thing in two different ways. And what does "By it I see everything else." What is it he is seeing that he can't see if he wasn't "seeing Christianity"? We've already established that atheists experience empathy and altruism just like Christians. To me it means that it makes sense of my life and why I am here and it fits with what I observe and know about the world around me. I certainly don't see it as evidence, let alone proof.
Percy writes: Why are you writing things that you know make sense to no one else? You've got your beliefs and they work for you. Why is it worth your time trying to convince others of the truth of what you believe? Why are you, or anyone else here for that matter, trying to convince me that I'm wrong? For myself, I sometimes learn things through discussion here.
Percy writes: Do you also understand the degree of empathy of those causing the suffering? I shouldn't have used the term "degree of empathy" as no one knows the degree of anyone else's empathy and how would you measure it anyway.
Percy writes: Okay, but that's you. No one would argue that you shouldn't feel that way. Why are you arguing that because you feel this way it is evidence for what you believe? It isn't evidence of anything. Don't know why I included it except that it is the best example I could think of for personal experience. I know it's not meaningful to you or anyone else.
Percy writes: You've said this before, and my answer is the same: Why do you keep making claims that evidence exists? I agree that there is no evidence that you would agree is evidence. I consider conscious life evidence of an external consciousness. You don't. Simple as that.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1472 by Percy, posted 11-30-2022 1:27 PM | | Percy has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1537 of 3694 (903328)
12-08-2022 1:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1533 by Percy
12-08-2022 10:08 AM
|
|
Re: What does God want of Us
Hi Percy I didn't abandon it. Both my wife and myself came down with Covid and so I've been kind sidelined. I'll get back to it some today.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1533 by Percy, posted 12-08-2022 10:08 AM | | Percy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1538 by Percy, posted 12-08-2022 2:23 PM | | GDR has not replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1539 of 3694 (903335)
12-08-2022 2:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1351 by Tangle
11-10-2022 6:19 PM
|
|
Re: What does God want of Us
Tangle writes: This is from Dale Allison,' Studies in Matthew' and 'The Structure of the Sermon on the Mount' as used by Carrier. "Allison shows that the Sermon on the Mount fits neatly within known rabbinical debates over how Jews could still fulfil the Torah after the destruction of the Temple cult. The general consensus amongst the rabbis was that good deeds now fulfil that (the Temple's) role (especially acts of love and mercy).That is essentially what the Sermon on the Mount says." Allison says that the rabbis of the time said "Upon three things the world standeth, "upon Torah, upon Temple service and gemilut hasidim" (deeds of loving kindness). Allison says that this - "the law, the cult and social behaviour." He says that Matthew arranged the Sermon on the Mount so as to be "a Christian interpretation of the three classic pillars." Carrier adds that he does this by simply assuming that the temple cult does not exist. "At no point does Jesus [...] explain what to do about temple sacrifice code in Levitucs or Deuteronomy.[...] In other words , it assumes the temple cult has already been destroyed. Which means this speech was written after 70CE. It does not come from Jesus" Firstly he pulls the S.ot M. out of the overall context of the entire book of Matthew. Jesus riles against the Temple corruption throughout His Gospel. Why bother if it is defunct? They weren't stupid. If Matthew had been written post war they would have known it to be contrived. For sake of argument let's say I agree that Matthew assumes the Temple cult no longer exists. It makes just as much sense to argue that as Jesus was predicting the destruction of the Temple, and with that the end of the Temple cult, then why wouldn't he use that understanding that the cult no longer existed. Once again, I don't see this as being supernatural but simply a solid grasp of the direction that the political situation would take going forward. I also agree that most of the Sermon is a compilation of OT material. Jesus was forever quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1351 by Tangle, posted 11-10-2022 6:19 PM | | Tangle has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1540 of 3694 (903343)
12-08-2022 3:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1355 by PaulK
11-11-2022 12:23 AM
|
|
Re: What does God want of Us
PaulK writes: Which “predicts” how the Romans would provoke a rebellion - as well as alluding to Daniel which predicts that God would intervene to save the Jews. Wrong on both counts. It simply predicts what the Romans will do. Daniel makes the point that it isn't just about the Jews but about all nations.
PaulK writes: Indeed, to show that it is not about the Romans. Daniel again is not about the Jewish situation regarding the Romans but about the world.
PaulK writes: I would point out that it indicates that Jesus would be seen doing so and that the elect would be gathered by angels. Also, Mark 13:20 indicates that God has “cut short” the tribulation to preserve the elect, indicating that the elect are alive on Earth at the time they are gathered. (And if the Tribulation is the Roman military response that would also point to divine intervention) When you go to Daniel 7 the one like a Son of Man is given dominion over an earthly Kingdom that will never be destroyed, 13:20 refers back to Deut 30:4 indicating that this Kingdom ill be drawn from all nations.
PaulK writes: Neither Mark nor Daniel make such a claim (indeed, the Temple is not destroyed in Daniel). That is simply your invention. No, it's more that I worded it poorly. The point is that when the Temple is destroyed, and along with it the corrupt Temple authorities, then through that they could have understand that the "Kingdom of Heaven", (Kingdom of God in other Gospels), had been established. Remember the Lord's Prayer when it says "Thy Kingdom come on Earth as in Heaven".
PaulK writes: As I have already shown it makes perfect sense given the Jewish understanding of the End Times. (See Zechariah 14 for an example). Zechariah 14 is a prediction, (that is never fulfilled), about the nations gathering together against Jerusalem and then God coming in and redeeming it. It's not about end times.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1355 by PaulK, posted 11-11-2022 12:23 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
GDR
Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: 05-22-2005 Member Rating: 2.2
|
|
|
Message 1543 of 3694 (903369)
12-08-2022 8:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1356 by Percy
11-11-2022 8:43 AM
|
|
Re: What does God want of Us
Percy writes: Without the gold plates Mormonism is just another failed religion. Why don't you read a lot of books about Mormonism and draw your conclusions. They'll have just as much merit as your conclusions about Jesus. If you happen to conclude, "What a bunch of malarkey!" then keep in mind the equivalence. The testimony of the resurrection is by 4 different Gospel writers, (of whom two were eyewitnesses and 2 received their information from eye witnesses as researched by Richard Bauckham), and testified to by the writers of the epistles. The book of Mormon was as an account given by 1 individual. This is from wiki.
quote:
According to Smith's account and the book's narrative, the Book of Mormon was originally written in otherwise unknown characters referred to as "reformed Egyptian"[9] engraved on golden plates. Smith said that the last prophet to contribute to the book, a man named Moroni, buried it in the Hill Cumorah in present-day Manchester, New York, before his death, and then appeared in a vision to Smith in 1827 as an angel, revealing the location of the plates and instructing him to translate the plates into English.[2] Most naturalistic views on the origins of the Book of Mormon hold that Smith authored it, drawing, whether consciously or subconsciously, on material and ideas from his contemporary 19th-century environment, rather than translating an ancient record.
Of course it's possible that the account by the one is correct and the accounts by the several could be false but I don't see an equivalence for comparing the two.
Percy writes: It's not enough for anyone. Piling your fictions bigger and higher doesn't turn them into truths. I can hardly argue with your preconceived convictions of what accounts are fictitious.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1356 by Percy, posted 11-11-2022 8:43 AM | | Percy has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2