Thanks ; )
Cris - thanks for the welcome
I find these forums (as I think I mentioned) quite unbiased and intelligable, thanks to the forum devotees like yourself.
I would like to apologize for a few things, respond to a few things, ask a few things... I decided to follow a format similar to the one you used, since it flowed nicely: (my comments proceed the ## marks)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that we can't figure everything out for ourselves, and must believe some of what we hear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Why is there any need whatsoever to believe something without supporting evidence, especially incredible stories about gods. If there is evidence then we can safely say we 'know', if evidence cannot be found then the best we can say is that we 'don't know'.
##What defines evidence? What we believe to be true based on what archeologists and scientists scrounged up? What we see and feel first hand? Could you iterate more specifically please?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Works of art from ancient times are what we believe to be works of our ancestors, based on archeological evidence that we believe indicates their age. Same goes for writings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the writings can be verified as being old their existence doesn't provide evidence to any truth about what they say. If someone in the distant future found an a book of fiction written today how would they know if it was fiction or a true story. Without any other supporting and independent evidence then no conclusion as to truth can be achieved. In ancient times myth making was commonplace as a form of entertainment. There was no requirement for objective journalism in those times.
##How do we know they've been verified as being old? Because we believe what archeologists and material scientists have concluded? What is the ozone layers' depletion made a specific form of paper appear to age more quickly than it did? How do we know we're not going to fall through the floor? Well, I know because I believe the matter will support me, but I don't consider the theories backing material science to be solid evidence... (atomic 'theory')
Point: We have to believe in some instances.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- I find the gospel (first four New Testament books) to be a wonderfully detailed account of Jesus's life,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Books of fiction can also give very believable accounts of people who do not exist.
##My point was that the gospel describes his life better than any other piece of writing describing him does. If you don't believe in any way that he existed (which the end of that statement seemed to suggest, pls correct me if I'm off), may I ask why the topic of this forum interests you?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and I'm surprised that the bible has been discarded as proof of Jesus's existance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But there are no other independent accounts of his existence. You cannot use as a source something that you want to prove. The bible says Jesus existed. How do we know the bible is telling the truth? To say that the bible says so is not acceptable. That would be like accepting without question the testimony of a murderer who says he is innocent.
No, for a credible proof of Jesus's existence you need to provide forms of other independent and secular evidence.
##There are no other independent accounts of his existance? New one to me.. I think this board brought up a few... I take it you aren't satisfied with them?
I know evidence of Christ's life is sketchy, but events such as the iconoclasm (AD 565-843) where depictions of Christ were destroyed by Christians, and the many periods of Christain persecution surely would have done a number on those links to Christ...
I can't use as a source something that I want to prove? The gospel isn't Jesus' existance, it's an account of his life written 4 times...
How do we know the bible is telling the truth? Same way we know Einstien was telling the truth, or anyone that we didn't hear firsthand... any info can be distorted over time, to any degree...
Wag the Dog, a movie which someone brought up earlier in this board (If you've seen it), displays a great example of beliefs and distorted truths... if you haven't seen it, I'd be glad to recall the plot for ya
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.. the four gospels were written by Matthew (Levi) (at ~A.D. 60-65*), John Mark (at ~A.D. 55-65*), Luke (at ~ A.D. 60*), and John (at ~A.D. 85-90*).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well established that the authors of the gospels are unknown and that the books were written by a multitude of authors. Your dates are also some way off. Mark was first at around 80CE.
##I apologize for my lack of research put into finding the dates there... I mentioned after the *s that my source was from my bible, which itself says "about", "approximately", and "probably" by the dates, showing it's failure of certainty... I don't know the source of your statements, but thanks for noting the dates you think to be true I hope to get around to looking into those more closely some day...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I especially consider Mattew's writing solid evindence of Jesus's existance, since Matthew was one of Jesus's disciples, making his writing directly influenced by his experience of living in close quarters with Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author's of Mathew are unknown. Mathew was also written around 90CE so any author would have to have been around 80 years old to be a reliable witness capable of understanding what was happening. Given that the average life expectancy in those times was around 28, then there is very little credibility that Mathew was written by any eyewitnesses.
##Another apology here, and my source for both the author and date were from the same bible, which apparently is not too reliable with dates and authors...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Jesus is said to be our saviour, the one who died and rose again so that we can rise again after death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a story variation copied from earlier mythologies.
It is? ...or you believe it to be?
My belief, as per earlier mythology, goes more along the lines of: mythologies were a result of humans desiring to feel under divine power, but rejecting their creator, creating stories based on knowledge of the "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge" (one gives eternal life, one kills), or from prophesies fortelling Christ (found in the Old Testament), or from their worries about their own deaths... many a possibility.. but it doesn't devalidate the story of Jesus.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were created.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatively we evolved or were the result of abiogenesis. Either theory has more evidential support than the creation stories.
##
"How do we see? In the 19th century the anatomy of the eye was known in great detail and the sophisticated mechanisms it employs to deliver an accurate picture of the outside world astounded everyone who was familiar with them. Scientists of the 19th century correctly observed that if a person were so unfortunate as to be missing one of the eye's many integrated features, such as the lens, or iris, or ocular muscles, the inevitable result would be a severe loss of vision or outright blindness. Thus it was concluded that the eye could only function if it were nearly intact.
As Charles Darwin was considering possible objections to his theory of evolution by natural selection in The Origin of Species he discussed the problem of the eye in a section of the book appropriately entitled "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication." He realized that if in one generation an organ of the complexity of the eye suddenly appeared, the event would be tantamount to a miracle. Somehow, for Darwinian evolution to be believable, the difficulty that the public had in envisioning the gradual formation of complex organs had to be removed.
Darwin succeeded brilliantly, not by actually describing a real pathway that evolution might have used in constructing the eye, but rather by pointing to a variety of animals that were known to have eyes of various constructions, ranging from a simple light sensitive spot to the complex vertebrate camera eye, and suggesting that the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates.
But the question remains, how do we see? Although Darwin was able to persuade much of the world that a modern eye could be produced gradually from a much simpler structure, he did not even attempt to explain how the simple light sensitive spot that was his starting point actually worked. When discussing the eye Darwin dismissed the question of its ultimate mechanism..."
"Evolution is an attempt to offer a natural explanation for the existence of our complex ecosystem, and the origin of life without God is virtually a philosophical necessity. Every evolutionary biology textbook has a large section if not a full chapter dedicated to the origin of life through abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was the original theory that proposed life could originate from nonliving matter. It is now well known that spontaneously generate of life in our present ecosystem is impossible. Louis Pasteur abolished the theory of spontaneous generation in 1959 because he believed that life was far to complex to have originated instantly from nonliving matter. He simultaneously established the theory of biogenesis; the origin of life from preexisting life.
All recognized life forms are produced by preexisting organisms, and the scientific community can not demonstrate abiogenesis under any conceivable conditions. Despite the absence of proof, abiogenesis has become accepted by nearly all practicing scientists. The theory of primary abiogenesis remains virtually unchanged since its inception in the 1920s, and assumes that life originated at some point in earth's past under conditions no longer present. The theory is summed-up by the phrase "abiogenesis at first biogenesis ever since". It is taught today as a certainty although the exact mechanisms remain theoretical. Discussions in evolutionary biology textbooks go to great lengths to demonstrate how abiogenesis could have occurred under multiple primordial scenarios."
(http://www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html)
Here's an article (a little lengthy, but thoroughly against abiogenesis) that is not from a creationist's perspective which I thought you might appreciate: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/4871/alt-evolu.html
I find it impossible to belive that the universe has always existed when the 4th dimension exists, because finite history is all I accept.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How else can our intricate bodies' existance be explained?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read some of science around the facts and theories of evolution.
##(see above)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An entity had to kick off the universe (the elements for which could not have just sprung into being.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or the universe has always existed which means no creation event is needed.
##Every form of life humans have analyzed began and ended... theory goes that every star and planet did also...
If our universe has always existed, I'm seeing a contradiction...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of this analysis requires the belief that the Holy Trinity is our creator, and that the scrolls used to compile the Bible are true-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And many here will not accept those assumptions, and in fact such claims are very much the essence of many debates here. If you base your arguments on these assumptions then you are doing little more than preaching.
##Actually, I tapped out that part for the Christian audience... most of it was aimed towards the masses, and I am sorry to have made you filter through what you don't believe...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since God created us,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure speculation.
##(see above)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we should live by the standards He set for our lives, whether we see them as beneficial or not...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. There is no logic in following ancient commands that are not of benefit to mankind.
##Which commandment(s) do you consider against mankind? If we all murdered, stole, created pregnancies outside of marriage and lied, would we be better off?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, we have not done this, and God knows this. In fact, we read that God hates this. How can we exist when our creator hates what we do? Becuase our creator loves us to the point that he suffered death to bring us back to Him. (When I say "back to Him", I'm referring to life after death.) This defines the sacrifice Jesus gave...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is preaching and is unwelcome.
##(see above again)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...when I read through threads like this, I easily am upset by reading beliefs contrary to my own, and I don't always think much before responding... I apologize if this response seems thoughtless in parts or in whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then consider the possibility that your unsupported beliefs might be utterly wrong and argue accordingly.
##I was trying to create a more open atmosphere there... I never read through forums discussing beliefs contrary to my own stoically.. do you?
People should be free to do anything they wish except where such actions would interfere with the freedom of others.
##I can only gather from that statement, being where it is, that you consider religious beliefs to interfere with the freedom of non-believers?... please don't view my arguments that way; it's not my intention to impair anyone's freedom...
Jan - Thanks for bringing those links in for anyone who hadn't seen them... 'twas right on topic
Cris - thanks for the welcome
I find these forums (as I think I mentioned) quite unbiased and intelligable, thanks to the forum devotees like yourself.I would like to apologize for a few things, respond to a few things, ask a few things... I decided to follow a format similar to the one you used, since it flowed nicely: (my comments proceed the ## marks)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that we can't figure everything out for ourselves, and must believe some of what we hear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Why is there any need whatsoever to believe something without supporting evidence, especially incredible stories about gods. If there is evidence then we can safely say we 'know', if evidence cannot be found then the best we can say is that we 'don't know'.
##What defines evidence? What we believe to be true based on what archeologists and scientists scrounged up? What we see and feel first hand? Could you iterate more specifically please?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Works of art from ancient times are what we believe to be works of our ancestors, based on archeological evidence that we believe indicates their age. Same goes for writings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the writings can be verified as being old their existence doesn't provide evidence to any truth about what they say. If someone in the distant future found an a book of fiction written today how would they know if it was fiction or a true story. Without any other supporting and independent evidence then no conclusion as to truth can be achieved. In ancient times myth making was commonplace as a form of entertainment. There was no requirement for objective journalism in those times.
##How do we know they've been verified as being old? Because we believe what archeologists and material scientists have concluded? What is the ozone layers' depletion made a specific form of paper appear to age more quickly than it did? How do we know we're not going to fall through the floor? Well, I know because I believe the matter will support me, but I don't consider the theories backing material science to be solid evidence... (atomic 'theory')
Point: We have to believe in some instances.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- I find the gospel (first four New Testament books) to be a wonderfully detailed account of Jesus's life,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Books of fiction can also give very believable accounts of people who do not exist.
##My point was that the gospel describes his life better than any other piece of writing describing him does. If you don't believe in any way that he existed (which the end of that statement seemed to suggest, pls correct me if I'm off), may I ask why the topic of this forum interests you?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and I'm surprised that the bible has been discarded as proof of Jesus's existance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But there are no other independent accounts of his existence. You cannot use as a source something that you want to prove. The bible says Jesus existed. How do we know the bible is telling the truth? To say that the bible says so is not acceptable. That would be like accepting without question the testimony of a murderer who says he is innocent.
No, for a credible proof of Jesus's existence you need to provide forms of other independent and secular evidence.
##There are no other independent accounts of his existance? New one to me.. I think this board brought up a few... I take it you aren't satisfied with them?
I know evidence of Christ's life is sketchy, but events such as the iconoclasm (AD 565-843) where depictions of Christ were destroyed by Christians, and the many periods of Christain persecution surely would have done a number on those links to Christ...
I can't use as a source something that I want to prove? The gospel isn't Jesus' existance, it's an account of his life written 4 times...
How do we know the bible is telling the truth? Same way we know Einstien was telling the truth, or anyone that we didn't hear firsthand... any info can be distorted over time, to any degree...
Wag the Dog, a movie which someone brought up earlier in this board (If you've seen it), displays a great example of beliefs and distorted truths... if you haven't seen it, I'd be glad to recall the plot for ya
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.. the four gospels were written by Matthew (Levi) (at ~A.D. 60-65*), John Mark (at ~A.D. 55-65*), Luke (at ~ A.D. 60*), and John (at ~A.D. 85-90*).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been well established that the authors of the gospels are unknown and that the books were written by a multitude of authors. Your dates are also some way off. Mark was first at around 80CE.
##I apologize for my lack of research put into finding the dates there... I mentioned after the *s that my source was from my bible, which itself says "about", "approximately", and "probably" by the dates, showing it's failure of certainty... I don't know the source of your statements, but thanks for noting the dates you think to be true
I hope to get around to looking into those more closely some day...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I especially consider Mattew's writing solid evindence of Jesus's existance, since Matthew was one of Jesus's disciples, making his writing directly influenced by his experience of living in close quarters with Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author's of Mathew are unknown. Mathew was also written around 90CE so any author would have to have been around 80 years old to be a reliable witness capable of understanding what was happening. Given that the average life expectancy in those times was around 28, then there is very little credibility that Mathew was written by any eyewitnesses.
##Another apology here, and my source for both the author and date were from the same bible, which apparently is not too reliable with dates and authors...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Jesus is said to be our saviour, the one who died and rose again so that we can rise again after death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a story variation copied from earlier mythologies.
It is? ...or you believe it to be?
My belief, as per earlier mythology, goes more along the lines of: mythologies were a result of humans desiring to feel under divine power, but rejecting their creator, creating stories based on knowledge of the "tree of life" and "tree of knowledge" (one gives eternal life, one kills), or from prophesies fortelling Christ (found in the Old Testament), or from their worries about their own deaths... many a possibility.. but it doesn't devalidate the story of Jesus.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We were created.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatively we evolved or were the result of abiogenesis. Either theory has more evidential support than the creation stories.
##
"How do we see? In the 19th century the anatomy of the eye was known in great detail and the sophisticated mechanisms it employs to deliver an accurate picture of the outside world astounded everyone who was familiar with them. Scientists of the 19th century correctly observed that if a person were so unfortunate as to be missing one of the eye's many integrated features, such as the lens, or iris, or ocular muscles, the inevitable result would be a severe loss of vision or outright blindness. Thus it was concluded that the eye could only function if it were nearly intact.
As Charles Darwin was considering possible objections to his theory of evolution by natural selection in The Origin of Species he discussed the problem of the eye in a section of the book appropriately entitled "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication." He realized that if in one generation an organ of the complexity of the eye suddenly appeared, the event would be tantamount to a miracle. Somehow, for Darwinian evolution to be believable, the difficulty that the public had in envisioning the gradual formation of complex organs had to be removed.
Darwin succeeded brilliantly, not by actually describing a real pathway that evolution might have used in constructing the eye, but rather by pointing to a variety of animals that were known to have eyes of various constructions, ranging from a simple light sensitive spot to the complex vertebrate camera eye, and suggesting that the evolution of the human eye might have involved similar organs as intermediates.
But the question remains, how do we see? Although Darwin was able to persuade much of the world that a modern eye could be produced gradually from a much simpler structure, he did not even attempt to explain how the simple light sensitive spot that was his starting point actually worked. When discussing the eye Darwin dismissed the question of its ultimate mechanism..."
"Evolution is an attempt to offer a natural explanation for the existence of our complex ecosystem, and the origin of life without God is virtually a philosophical necessity. Every evolutionary biology textbook has a large section if not a full chapter dedicated to the origin of life through abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation was the original theory that proposed life could originate from nonliving matter. It is now well known that spontaneously generate of life in our present ecosystem is impossible. Louis Pasteur abolished the theory of spontaneous generation in 1959 because he believed that life was far to complex to have originated instantly from nonliving matter. He simultaneously established the theory of biogenesis; the origin of life from preexisting life.
All recognized life forms are produced by preexisting organisms, and the scientific community can not demonstrate abiogenesis under any conceivable conditions. Despite the absence of proof, abiogenesis has become accepted by nearly all practicing scientists. The theory of primary abiogenesis remains virtually unchanged since its inception in the 1920s, and assumes that life originated at some point in earth's past under conditions no longer present. The theory is summed-up by the phrase "abiogenesis at first biogenesis ever since". It is taught today as a certainty although the exact mechanisms remain theoretical. Discussions in evolutionary biology textbooks go to great lengths to demonstrate how abiogenesis could have occurred under multiple primordial scenarios."
(http://www.nwcreation.net/abiogenesis.html)
Here's an article (a little lengthy, but thoroughly against abiogenesis) that is not from a creationist's perspective which I thought you might appreciate: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/4871/alt-evolu.html
I find it impossible to belive that the universe has always existed when the 4th dimension exists, because finite history is all I accept.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How else can our intricate bodies' existance be explained?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read some of science around the facts and theories of evolution.
##(see above)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An entity had to kick off the universe (the elements for which could not have just sprung into being.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or the universe has always existed which means no creation event is needed.
##Every form of life humans have analyzed began and ended... theory goes that every star and planet did also...
If our universe has always existed, I'm seeing a contradiction...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rest of this analysis requires the belief that the Holy Trinity is our creator, and that the scrolls used to compile the Bible are true-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And many here will not accept those assumptions, and in fact such claims are very much the essence of many debates here. If you base your arguments on these assumptions then you are doing little more than preaching.
##Actually, I tapped out that part for the Christian audience... most of it was aimed towards the masses, and I am sorry to have made you filter through what you don't believe...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since God created us,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure speculation.
##(see above)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
we should live by the standards He set for our lives, whether we see them as beneficial or not...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonsense. There is no logic in following ancient commands that are not of benefit to mankind.
##Which commandment(s) do you consider against mankind? If we all murdered, stole, created pregnancies outside of marriage and lied, would we be better off?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, we have not done this, and God knows this. In fact, we read that God hates this. How can we exist when our creator hates what we do? Becuase our creator loves us to the point that he suffered death to bring us back to Him. (When I say "back to Him", I'm referring to life after death.) This defines the sacrifice Jesus gave...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is preaching and is unwelcome.
##(see above again)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...when I read through threads like this, I easily am upset by reading beliefs contrary to my own, and I don't always think much before responding... I apologize if this response seems thoughtless in parts or in whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then consider the possibility that your unsupported beliefs might be utterly wrong and argue accordingly.
##I was trying to create a more open atmosphere there... I never read through forums discussing beliefs contrary to my own stoically.. do you?
People should be free to do anything they wish except where such actions would interfere with the freedom of others.
##I can only gather from that statement, being where it is, that you consider religious beliefs to interfere with the freedom of non-believers?... please don't view my arguments that way; it's not my intention to impair anyone's freedom...
Jan - Thanks for bringing those links in for anyone who hadn't seen them... 'twas right on topic
