Do not resist an evil person

[Crunchy Cat]

Crunchy Cat,
I was referring more to the reproducability of the observations.

Gotcha

That's what prevents someone from reverifying eye-witness accounts. Suppose that the evidence described in the Bible was witnessed by those who claimed to witness it, then there was evidence, and it would be rational to believe it (and important to carry it down to future generations). I know you don't believe in the trustworthiness of those laymen as you believe in the trustworthiness of our cosmologists and physicists, but that's the only reason you don't think there's any evidence.

Education standards from the biblical past were immensly different than they are today. People are prone to belief and fantasy. Testimony is one of the most unreliable sources of information. People make claims of the miraculous today that rival those of the past and yet nothing has ever been empirically recorded. All of this produces a plethora of evidence for utterly different ideas... none of which are the existince of a super sentient life form.

 

[Jenyar]

Gotcha

If you think so... however, my point stands. Empiricism is not the only means of enquiring valid data, and it may even be ill suited for some fields of enquiry:

[In addition, in the soft sciences, the requirement for a "controlled situation" may actually work against the utility of the hypothesis in a more general situation. When the desire is to test a hypothesis that works "in general", an experiment may have a great deal of internal validity, in the sense that it is valid in a highly controlled situation, while at the same time lack external validity when the results of the experiment are applied to a real world situation. -- Wiki: Design of experiments​

Also, "Successful use of an exclusively empirical method demands a higher degree of intuitive ability in the practitioner", which implies that a high degree of faith needs to be placed on the ability of the practitioner. What might seem like reasonable faith in the method might end up being unreasonable faith in the person applying it.

Education standards from the biblical past were immensly different than they are today. People are prone to belief and fantasy. Testimony is one of the most unreliable sources of information. People make claims of the miraculous today that rival those of the past and yet nothing has ever been empirically recorded. All of this produces a plethora of evidence for utterly different ideas... none of which are the existince of a super sentient life form.

And you're sure your perspective doesn't suffer from chronological arrogance - the fallacy that because we know "more" today, the people who knew less historically must have been primitive. Different, yes - but different doesn't equal unreliable. If history is anything to go by, our current understanding is probably just as "unreliable" from a future perspective. That doesn't stop you from making confident claims about what we may be sure of; why should it have stopped people in the past?

Considering that a lot of our present mysteries involve how people in the past managed just what they did, it might help to practice a little humility and provide a little more proof of what you claim here.

Besides, if "testimony is one of the most unreliable sources of information", that includes the testimonies of sceintists about their findings. You haven't repeated them yourself, have you? And even if you had, who should reasonably believe you? It still comes down to the trustworthiness of the witness. But what other forms of evidence can one expect history to provide to corroborate unique phenomenological occurences?

 

[Ophiolite]

Besides, if "testimony is one of the most unreliable sources of information", that includes the testimonies of sceintists about their findings.

Utter, complete, irredeemable nonsense.
To make a statement like this you would have to have almost zero understanding of the scientific method. Or be lying for the sake of your argument.
Either way it is too late in the day for me to waste time on an ignoramus or a liar. If any casual reader of the thread would genuinely like an explanation of why Jenyar's statement is neck deep bullshit please ask.

 

[Woody]

CC said:

Testimony is one of the most unreliable sources of information.

What's the point of our judiciary system, to find a scapegoat?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

If you think so... however, my point stands. Empiricism is not the only means of enquiring valid data, and it may even be ill suited for some fields of enquiry:

[In addition, in the soft sciences, the requirement for a "controlled situation" may actually work against the utility of the hypothesis in a more general situation. When the desire is to test a hypothesis that works "in general", an experiment may have a great deal of internal validity, in the sense that it is valid in a highly controlled situation, while at the same time lack external validity when the results of the experiment are applied to a real world situation. -- Wiki: Design of experiments​

Also, "Successful use of an exclusively empirical method demands a higher degree of intuitive ability in the practitioner", which implies that a high degree of faith needs to be placed on the ability of the practitioner. What might seem like reasonable faith in the method might end up being unreasonable faith in the person applying it.

You have done a great job in pointing out something already known. Hard science has a near 1:1 relationship with reality. Soft science has more layers because we don't have a means to make it "hard" (yet), hence there is alot more interpretation and error. Hard and soft science involve trust in both the data and people wielding the process of science. Exploring science in depth doesn't mysteriously give theology credability in understanding reality nor does it provide evidence that 'God' exists.

And you're sure your perspective doesn't suffer from chronological arrogance - the fallacy that because we know "more" today, the people who knew less historically must have been primitive.

Because we know more today means that people in the past were considerably less knowledgeable.

Different, yes - but different doesn't equal unreliable. If history is anything to go by, our current understanding is probably just as "unreliable" from a future perspective. That doesn't stop you from making confident claims about what we may be sure of; why should it have stopped people in the past?

It does make it unreliable because those people never were educated how to think. Oh look, the sun. It gives warmth and light; therefore, it's 'God'. One thing that is paramount to understand is that humans are prone to belief and fantasy as a default survival mechanism. While its useful and has helped our species to some extent, it is a substitute for truth and myself and many others value truth over our default mode of operation.

Considering that a lot of our present mysteries involve how people in the past managed just what they did, it might help to practice a little humility and provide a little more proof of what you claim here.

It's not a mystery to me how people in the mast survived (maybe it is for others) and humility is irrelevant to it. For some reason you really want to trap me in some corner where you can say, "see, you think you are better than those people...". I am not debating with you to make you feel good about being judgmental, to provide you with social dominance, to stroke your ego, etc. I am debating with you because you are on a science forum, have asserted that 'God' presently exists, and have not provided any evidence of it. Consequently, I noted that you were looking for evidence of something I claimed and (this might be a new experience for you) I would be happy to provide it. What claim in particular may I assist you with?

Besides, if "testimony is one of the most unreliable sources of information", that includes the testimonies of sceintists about their findings. You haven't repeated them yourself, have you? And even if you had, who should reasonably believe you? It still comes down to the trustworthiness of the witness. But what other forms of evidence can one expect history to provide to corroborate unique phenomenological occurences?

This is one annoyance I have with the english language. The context of the situation changes the meaning. A testimony in religion is public declaration of some fantastic event / experience. A testimony at a science symposium is a summary of available evidence supporting a theory.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

CC said:



What's the point of our judiciary system, to find a scapegoat?

What is the point of the question? To show that the judiciary system only relies on fantastic claim?

 

[Jenyar]

Utter, complete, irredeemable nonsense.
To make a statement like this you would have to have almost zero understanding of the scientific method. Or be lying for the sake of your argument.
Either way it is too late in the day for me to waste time on an ignoramus or a liar. If any casual reader of the thread would genuinely like an explanation of why Jenyar's statement is neck deep bullshit please ask.

Sorry if my phrasing offends you, Ophiolite, but Crunchy Cat's answer makes more sense. Speaking of "testimony" is too broad. The testimony of someone who's seen something non-verifiable is phenomenologically different than that of someone who's seen something verifiable. Science itself runs into this problem with the "soft" sciences. This is where you see the faith I was talking about: "...we don't have a means to make it 'hard' (yet)". Well, neither do we. I don't think if the events described really happened it would have been any easier for us to believe them unless we trust the people involved (regardless of how primitive their scientific explanations were).

Reality doesn't just happen to scientists.

 

[Jenyar]

What is the point of the question? To show that the judiciary system only relies on fantastic claim?

Do you think it does? What's the point of eye-witness testimony?

 

[LightEagle]

I think there might be a confusion of issues here. One's attitude before and after a rape are two totally different issues. Jenyar has very eloquently described issues regarding the "before-the-rape" scenario and the practical implications of defending ones self and the right that one has the right to defend one's self in the light of the quoted passage from the Bible. The attitude after the rape is something completely different. If you have gone to the authorities and they have not been able to track the rapist down, one has two choices. The first would be to live in hate and lust for revenge which will consume you in the long run. The second would be to forgive, so that you can go on with life and grow as an individual. God will avenge for He alone has the power and perspective to do so.

I think the problem might be that people see the Bible as a book of laws and regulations and try all in their power to abide by those laws for various reasons (very few of which have to do with either the love of God or the love of your neighbour). The Bible is about an attitude of love between God and people, between people and God and between people amongst themselves. We are called to love and to direct any action in Life that we take from a vantage and attitude of love. It is as simple and as complex as that.

 

[Woody]

What is the point of the question? To show that the judiciary system only relies on fantastic claim?

The point of the question is to help you realize that "human testimony" is relied on quite heavily in our court system. So don't through out the baby with the bathwater. Wouldn't you know they have you swear on a "fantastic claim" called a bible?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Do you think it does? What's the point of eye-witness testimony?

Not at all. The point of eye-witness testimony can be to see if it matches physical evidence, to see if there are inconsistencies, to establish credibility, to gain expert interpretation, ... and the list goes on.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The point of the question is to help you realize that "human testimony" is relied on quite heavily in our court system. So don't through out the baby with the bathwater. Wouldn't you know they have you swear on a "fantastic claim" called a bible?

The court system does rely on testimony heavily and the context of any case and scenario changes the definition of testimony wildly. In the cases where case information exists solely in the minds of people, the most error is going to occur.

Yep, I am aware that people swear on the bible. That's a seperation of church and state issue if the courtroom is favoring one philosophy over another (xianity in this case). Someone will eventually change that.

 

[Woody]

Yep, I am aware that people swear on the bible. That's a seperation of church and state issue if the courtroom is favoring one philosophy over another (xianity in this case). Someone will eventually change that.

I refuse to swear on the bible in court.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I refuse to swear on the bible in court.

Maybe you're that person to enforce the seperation then.

 

[Jenyar]

I agree. Nothing could be more beneficial to any society than the separation of church and state. Chrisitianity was never intended to rule, it was intended to serve.

 

[Woody]

I agree. Nothing could be more beneficial to any society than the separation of church and state. Chrisitianity was never intended to rule, it was intended to serve.

agreed. And someday there will be only one ruler - Jesus Christ. We won't need a judicial system any longer either, because justice will be served instantly. The rest of us will be at liberty to live in peace with one another.

 

[Woody]

Keep in mind that for every Daniel there were hundreds of Christians who were killed by wild animals in the collosseums because of their belief in God. God never promised to take us out of suffering, just to take the suffering out of us.

But I'll still go down fighting a sex offender if I have to, not that they would be interested in an old guy like me anyway. We have the option of martyrdom as well.

 

[Jenyar]

But I'll still go down fighting a sex offender if I have to, not that they would be interested in an old guy like me anyway. We have the option of martyrdom as well.

So would I. Letting yourself be raped would achieve nothing. But a martyr, as I understand it, is someone who died because of his faith (martyr comes from the Greek "witness"). Like Rachel Scott, Perpetua, and perhaps even Maximillian Kolbe, who volunteered to die in the place of a stranger at Auschwitz.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I liked your account ToR. It's a very real problem - how does a person resist being violated without resorting to violence themselves? Jesus seems to have said lots of things like this that go against common sense. Perhaps he said them to get us to think!

I can't help thinking of the Karpman "drama triangle" of victim/persecutor/rescuer. It is a triangle based on shame, all roles are interlinked. The only way to escape it, is to realise your own role and refuse to play. Fearless "turning the other cheek" might just be such a strategy.

Quote from "The Three Faces of Victim" by Lynne Forest.

Most of us unconsciously react to life from a position of victim-hood. Anytime we refuse to take responsibility for ourselves, we are opting to play victim. This leaves us feeling at the mercy of, done in by and un-faired against; no matter what our situation might be.

Victim-hood consists of three positions outlined by Stephen Karpman, a teacher of Transactional Analysis, on what he called the "Drama Triangle". Having learned of it some thirty years ago, it has been one of the most important tools in my personal, as well as professional life. As my understanding of the Drama Triangle has expanded, so has my appreciation for this simple, but powerfully accurate instrument. I call it the "shame machine" because through it we unconsciously re-enact our vicious cycles, thereby creating shame. Every dysfunctional interaction takes place on the Drama Triangle! Until we make these dynamics conscious, we cannot transform them. Unless we transform them, we cannot move forward on our journey towards re-claiming our spiritual heritage.

Karpman named the three roles on the Drama Triangle Persecutor, Rescuer and Victim and placed them on an upside down triangle representing the three faces of victim. Even though only one is called Victim, all three originate out of and end up back there. Therefore they are all stopping places on the road to victim-hood.....

...In order to get off the Triangle, we must first decide to take responsibility for ourselves. We then begin to allow ourselves to acknowledge and express our true feelings, even when doing so is uncomfortable. As we explore our core beliefs and starting gate positions, we become better able to recognize when someone is attempting to hook us, and refuse to allow it.

 

[Jenyar]

Both of your contributions were extremely valuable and insightful to me, thank you!