Why isn’t God more obvious?

[Chazman]

Chazman --

My response was meant to answer Rosa's question. And, in examining hypotheticals, I had to differentiate between what I felt could be other reasons for God's silence and the reasons I felt were mandated in the case of the Christian God, which are entirely different due to the addition of the Christian notion of Hell. I was not suggesting that this thread's topic was directed toward anything but the standard notion of a Christian God. Rather, I was examining the implications of Rosa's statement about the nature of freedom.

Though I might add that merely mentioning other gods, religions, or philosophies is not an entirely foreign phenomenon here on a religion discussion forum.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, considering your posts suggest that you are either twelve years old or mildly retarded.

Thanks and have a great day.

seems to me. Just maybe you've taken a few things alittle personal.
sorry to have upset you. but I still don't buy your feeble attemp of an explaination. however,,,, true this is an "open forum".,, and your are entitled to your opition just as anyone else.
that being said. I do have a Question for you .If I may be so bold.

QUOTE=JustARide

Still, our problem remains. The Bible God, who makes fire come down from the heavens and turns people into pillars of salt, is decidedly man-like.

Question : 2nd and 3rd word WHO is --> "our" (suggest others like yourself )? AND please! don't say "Jacques Derrida" is my God , at best just say your a wanna be...

Also,,OH and I'll be twelve in two months, AND I am the only one not retarded in my family

 

[JustARide]

seems to me. Just maybe you've taken a few things alittle personal.
sorry to have upset you. but I still don't buy your feeble attemp of an explaination. however,,,, true this is an "open forum".,, and your are entitled to your opition just as anyone else.

Well, Chazman, when your first response to someone who is presenting an argument you find somewhat superfluous is to call the person stupid, you should expect the same in return. But I'm glad you at least realize the importance of allowing people their "opitions." Perhaps once you learn to type/spell, our conversation can reach new and previously unthinkable intellectual heights.

QUOTE=JustARide

Still, our problem remains. The Bible God, who makes fire come down from the heavens and turns people into pillars of salt, is decidedly man-like.

Question : 2nd and 3rd word WHO is --> "our" (suggest others like yourself )? AND please! don't say "Jacques Derrida" is my God , at best just say your a wanna be...

OK, 1. What the fuck are you talking about?

2. My use of the word "our" was merely a conversational flourish, signifying nothing but a transition in my argument.

3. Jacques Derrida is a French post-structuralist philosopher known for inventing the term "deconstruction." I did not advance the theory that he is God. I compared a statement Rosa made to a concept introduced by Derrida in some of his more recent works.

4. Do you type with your feet?

AND I am the only one not retarded in my family

I beg to differ.

 

[Cris]

SVRP,

Thank you for your reply, Cris, but it would help those who are open-minded to know what references you have ascertained your contradictory statements from.

I don’t think you mean open-minded but rather those in search of accuracy. There have been many discussions here on the historicity of Jesus and I’ve posted my links each time, but this is probably not the best thread to re-open such a debate.

Yet the hard evidence that both liberal and conservative historians have agreed upon are that the passages by Josephus in The Antiquities and Testimonium Flavuianum corroborates important information about Jesus that is mentioned in the NT- that he was martyred in Jeruselum and that he was a wise teacher who had established a wide and lasting following.

But that is the point – there is no agreement on such a claim.

The disputes are on the interpolations that were added on which do not agree with Josephus' writing style, as pointed out in the website, but it does not take away the fact Josephus recorded a person named Jesus who lived and was considered a wise man, yet was crucified in Jerusalem under Pilate.

But it is not a fact that Josephus recorded any such thing. You are still looking at the issue via Christian propaganda.

(Here is a short list of historians who consider Josephus writings reliable historical documents - Karen Armstrong, Ben Worthington III, James Strange, Paula Fredriksen, Helmut Koester, N.T. Wright, and John Dominic Crossan.)

The claims for Josephus have been accepted as absolute for most of the past 1700 years, the fact that many scholars have quoted such references is not at all surprising but it has only been recently that the passages have come under much closer scrutiny and careful examination. I do not believe any of your quoted writers are working from recent research.

But try this current debate on Josephus http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm

And consider this in terms of perspective and credibility – Josephus wrote many detailed volumes covering the events of some 2000 years ago over some 8 decades. Had Jesus actually existed we would have expected there to be far more in Josephus’ writings than two disputed statements one of which we know is of Christian origin. Josephus represents the only potential independent eye-witness for the existence of Jesus and that evidence is tentative and delicate. And given the overwhelming silence from any other independent source we seem to be faced with a significant credibility issue regarding the historicity of Jesus.

Doherty concludes with –

Although it may well be that we owe Josephus’ survival through the Middle Ages to the unknown Christian interpolator who gave us the Testimonium, it is time to release Josephus from his Christian captivity—and from the bonds of those who continue to claim him as a witness to the existence of an historical Jesus. But if the weight of argument would impel us to acknowledge that Josephus seems to have made no reference at all to Jesus, what implications do we draw from this?

Here is a Jewish historian who was born and grew up in Judea shortly after Pilate’s tumultous governorship, with its presumed crucifixion of a Jewish sage and wonder worker, a man whose followers claimed had risen from the dead and who gave rise to a vital new religious sect. Here is an historian who remembers and records in his work with staggering efficiency and in voluminous detail the events and personalities and socio-political subtleties of eight decades and more. Can we believe that Josephus would have been ignorant of this teaching revolutionary and the empire-wide movement he produced, or that for some unfathomable reason he chose to omit Jesus from his chronicles?

Destroying the credibility of the Josephus references inevitably places a very strong nail in the coffin of the historical Jesus.

This needs a different thread if you wish to pursue this again.

Cris

 

[water]

And probably the best evidence for strong atheism is the continuing absence of evidence for gods despite thousands of years of claims by theists. But strong atheism also asserts various paradoxes that demonstrate the impossibility of at least the Christian god.

The God most atheists lack belief in is the old man with a beard.

But many religionists don't believe in that old man with a beard anyway, so I find it really silly to fervently proclaim one's lack of belief in that old man with a beard.

There is also the issue that the concept of gods is an entirely imaginative fiction devised by humans and hence no reason to believe that such fantasies have any place in reality. From this perspective theism lacks credibility.

Ahem. Also note that "social stability", "law", "love", "hate" are "entirely imaginative fictions devised by humans and hence no reason to believe that such fantasies have any place in reality". From this perspective ANY CONCEPT OR PERSON lacks credibility.


***

And why do you think that is? The Bible itself presents a very anthropomorphized picture of God. In it, the creator of the universe gets "angry," changes his mind, takes a "rest" on the seventh day, and quite often commits acts that would not be out of character for an earthly dictator.

Humans cannot but anthropomorphize. The way actions done by God are described is the way a (super)human would do them. Which doesn't mean that this is the only way to describe them.

You bring up an interesting point. I believe Jacques Derrida calls this "translatability": the notion that the name "God" is forever interchangeable with other names, whether it is "Love," "Wisdom" or, for Derrida, "Justice" and so there can be no bedrock definition of God.

Which is one more reason why it is an act of inconsistency to go and claim one's religious belief as the one and only right one.

Still, our problem remains. The Bible God, who makes fire come down from the heavens and turns people into pillars of salt, is decidedly man-like.

Anthropomorphic explanations of certain natural phenomena ... Just like the ancient Germans believed that when it thunders, it is Thor, working with his hammer.

And it is obvious from his various exploits in the OT that it is within his power to make himself more known. And yet, he prefers to remain mysterious enough that 70% of the people in the world today have failed to recognize that he even exists, or they have grossly misinterpreted his "signs." And, if we are to take the Bible at face value, then no matter how well-intentioned that 70% is, we must believe they are riding the highway to Hell.

The most of those people who don't "see" or recognize God think that what they should see, if they are to see God, is that old man with a beard, quite literally.
Or some "parapsychological phenomenon".

I suppose if they would stop striving to see God as that old man with a beard, they would see and recognize God quite soon.

Because the Bible God does act very much like other ancient gods at times, wouldn't you agree?

This is what he is described like, yes.

Scribbling on stone tablets. Ordering sacrifices. Meddling in human's affairs. Saving people via miracles that suspend the rules of physics. It's not as if the Bible depicts God as some nuanced force, some vague New Age feeling, or Spinoza-esque being.

Well, we must note that the text is very old. Know that in the Middle Ages, for example, exotic birds were supposedly growing on trees, like fruit ...
They didn't have terms like "social stability", "holistic causality", "game theory", "rational agents", "xenophobia" etc. back then, so they *described* those concepts some other way.

And while I tend to agree with your musings on the nature of God (if indeed such a being exists), I don't think the Bible is innocent when it comes to painting an all-too-human picture of God.

This is Jenyar's department, I don't have enough expertise. But as far as I know, at least by some religionists, the Bible is simply an account of a tribe, in many aspects of the life of a tribe.

While to me, some passages are very militant for example, if I think of my everyday life and the way I defend myself and the way I treat people who wish to hurt me -- yes, then I can be described as militant too. For example, when I refused to put up with my fairweather Mormon friends and broke all conenctions with them: I indeed regarded them as lying, lowlife scumbags, "to hell" with them if their morality is so vastly different from mine. I rejected them in the name of my morality (= biblical equivalent for "my God's commandments"), and acted in some aggressive and vicious ways (= biblical equivalent of "God's wrath"). All along, I did not feel like I am superior to them though (= biblical equivalent of "love thy enemy").

 

[HARRY]

Hi Cris,
Thank's for your comment's.

Why? As I understand it the many miracle's that Jesus performed and his fame at the time should in themself had been enough for them to believe. Asking for more proof is vain and that in essence you don't want to believe.

To be doubtless in iteself only has some power to strenghen one's feeling's toward's something or someone. If I never doubt my wife then I live in my own peace of mind regardless if she cheat on me.
To be doubtless in God's power is an acknowledgment to yourself and to God that your not a fraud. God confirms your faith (doubtlesness) to the extent of moving mountain's etc.
Like I said faith without works is dead. (As a side note it's not right to tempt God)
As the Bible story's indicates God help you when you need it and in most cases Christians alway's need God because it is expected of a Christian to fight temptation that most of the times are impossible to resist. The power to resist eating on a fast day requiers just as much as the power to move mountains because man according to the Christian faith has Three forces to contend with. First he must defeat the natural eurge, next the temptation which is increased by the presence of demon's and or people tricking us and thirdly which in essence is where all temptation's come from God Himself. God tests us if you like in way's nothing else can. So in a sence it's a catch 22. God test us and God gives us the power to overcome the trial with the one and only thing man acctually has at his desposal his free will. God test our free will continually by setting before us very difficult challenges which force us to search deep in ourself for the purpose of purifing our free will to the degree that we can be trusted with divine gift's. God calls Christian's to be as god's under one condition our hearts have only one inclination and that is True Love.
Sorry I side tracked a bit but I feel the need for certain element's be made clear.
Doughting God is an indication that you are far from ever been given any gift's.
Yes at this point one could say as you have said it's the oldest trick in the book to use the scare tactic "Don't doubt God you'll go to Hell".
This scare tactic in itself is not the way forward in any Religion. Like any family having a fearfull father figure can in some case stop children from turning into criminal's but in spiritual matters fear is a natural result of having a deep and clear belief in God. If one truly believe's in God then violating God love by doing evil is fearful out of respect for God who has given us life. Unhealthy fear is a result of bad religion. Christ brought fear onto the people by expelling the traders from the house of God. What he did was out of Love for God. So any act of terror must be out of Love and not to delude or keep control of the faithful which is making them rich. Chirst was very voiceful against bad religion and this is one of the reason's why He is so respected.

What ever one claims to be true is tested by time. Sofar our society seem to be steering toward atheism and as far as I'm concerned it could be considered a modern trend in relation to world history. I'm not a expert in what proof exist about Christ so I can't speak on this. Other factor's brought me to my conclusion and not fact's.

Propaganda is just bad religion, bad religion is just another problem like any other nothing for me to cry about.

I only mentioned that for SOME evidence of supernatural belief's could be an indication that God communcated with man and if we find evidence that all religion's originally believed in One god then this is worth considering.

Yes it's not evidence in itself that spirit's exist by when you see what people are prepared to do to cast spell's on each other's is hard to ignore.
I have a friend who was a user of these craft's and he was convinced. (My opinion is that all these crafts are product's of man participation in the spirit world be it Good or Bad spirit's and yes their are fakes in these craft's aswell).

When said the Bible come to life I mean it's teaching make more sence and much of it's content is more comprehendable. I did'nt say it prove's the Bible. To prove the Bible is realy not the issue.My opinion is truth is relative to ones relationship with God. In the end only God know's what is true. In essence there is no reason for any science to exist the only thing important to a Christian is to use his free will to indicate if we are for or against God. My opinion is choosing not to Believe in God is fruitless. You can work with God and still achieve. If Einstein could then why can't all seakers of knowledge.
Believing the Bible is one of those choices, I don't necessarily comprehend or like all the Bible say's, I feel it's worth more than some theory's on the Big bang.
I would like to ecourage you to avoid the common mistake of jumping to conclusion's. I havn't made my final conclusion on all the Bible has to say so if you like you can do the same.

Regard,
Harry

ps. did have time to proof read so please excuse errors

 

[Cris]

Rosa,

The God most atheists lack belief in is the old man with a beard.

That is a very quaint and uninformed perspective. I suspect such a view is only held by children and introducing the idea here seems very curious. Is this perhaps the effect of your oversimplified Christian indoctrination?

But many religionists don't believe in that old man with a beard anyway, so I find it really silly to fervently proclaim one's lack of belief in that old man with a beard.

Then why introduce the idea since I didn’t. How about focusing on the current debate instead?

..note that "social stability", "law", "love", "hate" are "entirely imaginative fictions devised by humans and hence no reason to believe that such fantasies have any place in reality".

Ask a lawyer if law is a fiction and I’m sure he will be pleased to sue you for something. And it looks like you have never experienced love – that is a shame. So please don’t be so silly – all these things are extremely very real. But we can’t say the same about gods, can we?

From this perspective ANY CONCEPT OR PERSON lacks credibility.

Think this through more carefully – I hope you can this is nonsense.

Cris

 

[Cris]

Harry,

Why? As I understand it the many miracle's that Jesus performed and his fame at the time should in themself had been enough for them to believe.

You seem to have answered a different question – but for now – do you realize there is no independent corroboration of any such miracles ever being performed? And even the existence of a Jesus is very much in doubt.

Asking for more proof is vain

Requesting some proof, any proof, is both prudent and wise. Vanity has certainly nothing to do with this.

.. and that in essence you don't want to believe.

Why bring up my desire to believe or not? My avatar says I am in search of immortality and if the Jesus myth was true then I could achieve my goal, so in this case I very much want to believe but not without some form of credible evidence.

But my question was about your quote “'Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believed.'”. My question was asking why someone should feel blessed by irrationally believing something without evidence.

To be doubtless in iteself only has some power to strenghen one's feeling's toward's something or someone.

I have no idea what that sentence means.

If I never doubt my wife then I live in my own peace of mind regardless if she cheat on me.

I think you are saying you prefer to live in ignorance than know the truth, is that right? I don’t see any value in that stance.

To be doubtless in God's power is an acknowledgment to yourself and to God that your not a fraud.

Where does fraud come into this?

God confirms your faith (doubtlesness) to the extent of moving mountain's etc.

Which mountains have been moved by gods and how do you know? And why is mountain moving relevant to this debate?

As the Bible story's indicates God help you when you need it

And what of the millions of people who have desperately needed help and genuinely prayed and died instead?

and in most cases Christians alway's need God because it is expected of a Christian to fight temptation that most of the times are impossible to resist.

This chunk of you post seems to meander on about – I’m not sure what and it doesn’t appear to address my questions – so, sorry, but I’ll skip that part.

Doughting God is an indication that you are far from ever been given any gift's.

On the other hand it is healthy rational skepticism free of ideological superstitious indoctrination.

Like any family having a fearfull father figure can in some case stop children from turning into criminal's but in spiritual matters fear is a natural result of having a deep and clear belief in God.

What a dreadful religion. Wouldn’t one that had a loving god where there was nothing to fear be more attractive? You need to realize that Christianity is a human invented institution primarily used for political control of the masses. Using the fear of supernatural powers has been the control mechanism of choice for thousands of years by countless religions – and Christianity is no different.

What ever one claims to be true is tested by time.

This is primarily because of human curiosity and scientific discoveries. I’m not aware of any single truth offered by any religion that has lasted the test of time. Most religious claims have been destroyed by truths discovered via science.

Sofar our society seem to be steering toward atheism and as far as I'm concerned it could be considered a modern trend in relation to world history.

This is good since it shows that better education is slowly reaching larger numbers of people.

I'm not a expert in what proof exist about Christ so I can't speak on this. Other factor's brought me to my conclusion and not fact's.

Yes OK, but you should realize that being guided by your emotions rather than objective evidence is the most unreliable method for acquiring any type of truth.

Propaganda is just bad religion, bad religion is just another problem like any other nothing for me to cry about.

Propaganda is an essential vehicle used to convince others of your case where you have no evidence. Christian evangelism is primarily propaganda. It is designed to convince non-believers that they are not fit for the afterlife and are basically sinful and bad and should accept a superstition as their way of life.

I only mentioned that for SOME evidence of supernatural belief's could be an indication that God communcated with man and if we find evidence that all religion's originally believed in One god then this is worth considering.

Try reading “The History of God” by Karen Armstrong. This explores theism from very early times and shows that mankind has nearly always had mixtures of monotheism and polytheism.

In essence there is no reason for any science to exist the only thing important to a Christian is to use his free will to indicate if we are for or against God.

My opinion is choosing not to Believe in God is fruitless. You can work with God and still achieve. If Einstein could then why can't all seakers of knowledge.

Firstly you should know that from a Christian perspective Einstein is on record as stating that he was an atheist. Secondly please understand that without man’s scientific pursuits we would all likely be living in caves and you are unlikely to have ever existed or perhaps died from one of the many ailments now avoided by modern antibiotics.

Believing the Bible is one of those choices, I don't necessarily comprehend or like all the Bible say's, I feel it's worth more than some theory's on the Big bang.

But why? The bible is based on mythology whereas science is solely based on evidence.

Take care
Cris

 

[water]

“ The God most atheists lack belief in is the old man with a beard. ”

That is a very quaint and uninformed perspective. I suspect such a view is only held by children and introducing the idea here seems very curious. Is this perhaps the effect of your oversimplified Christian indoctrination?

Oh yes, my "oversimplified Christian indoctrination". Considering that I grew up in an atheistic family within a strictly Catholic environment, and have been harmed by Christians, "in the name of their righteousness, as I was regarded as bad, being a non-Christian" -- yes indeed, I could say I am under the influence of my oversimplified Christian indoctrination ..........

Then why introduce the idea since I didn’t. How about focusing on the current debate instead?

Ahem. The old man with a beard is easy to dismiss as possible. Try to dismiss Zeus or Krishna. The thread is about God being more obvious, do read what I said to JustARide in my previous post.

Ask a lawyer if law is a fiction and I’m sure he will be pleased to sue you for something. And it looks like you have never experienced love – that is a shame. So please don’t be so silly – all these things are extremely very real. But we can’t say the same about gods, can we?

To religionists, God is as real as love, hate, law etc. is real to certain other people.

For example, if you were a member of an indigenous tribe, you'd get yourself expelled from the tribe (if not killed) if you would doubt God.


On the other hand, someone here said "I see no harm in mankind walking quietly into the night" and that the reason why he hasn't given up on himself are "Habits, shortsighted compassion for friends and familiy and irrational fear of there being something after death." To this person, love, hate etc. are fiction. He certainly does not believe in God -- but he does not believe in love either, both are fictitious to him.


Also, give the definition od God you are refering to when you say "God".

 

[duendy]

well "God" is a word. its use can create images. an old man with a long white beard sat on a golden throne on a cloud etc....

I feel the if anything, 'God' is Direct Experience. a sense of awesome power. possessed by an inspiring power

what went wrong, is when this DIRECT feeling was set apart and deified. This transition is obvious in Orphism where the original direct experience of Dionysos was later mde a transcendent principle. you see same patter in Abrahmic religions and so on.

 

[JustARide]

Humans cannot but anthropomorphize. The way actions done by God are described is the way a (super)human would do them. Which doesn't mean that this is the only way to describe them.

I agree, but that doesn't really change the reality of the Bible. It is the book many turn to for answers and many accept its depiction of God as perfect and authoratative. But now we're headed into hermeneutics territory...

Which is one more reason why it is an act of inconsistency to go and claim one's religious belief as the one and only right one.

Agreed. The tendency toward fundamentalism is probably my single biggest problem with religion and those who subscribe to it.

Anthropomorphic explanations of certain natural phenomena ... Just like the ancient Germans believed that when it thunders, it is Thor, working with his hammer.

Indeed.

The most of those people who don't "see" or recognize God think that what they should see, if they are to see God, is that old man with a beard, quite literally.
Or some "parapsychological phenomenon".

I suppose if they would stop striving to see God as that old man with a beard, they would see and recognize God quite soon.

I suppose I'm a tad more cynical on that point. While I concur that mankind would benefit greatly from another iconoclast revolution of sorts, a stripping away of all preconceived notions about God, I can't believe that even that would produce any sort of agreement about the nature of God.

While an agnostic myself, I have a certain respect for the Gnostics, who were less about labeling God and more about exploring him. And while I believe their version of religion, no matter how misguided, would be a better template for today's modern faiths, it would not solve the problem of fundamentalism. All attempts at mysticism or liberal religious thought will eventually breed a clan of elitists, who claim the "secret of God" is known only to them. Then the cycle of hegemony starts all over...

But I digress. I happen to be reading a book related to this subject at the moment...

This is Jenyar's department, I don't have enough expertise. But as far as I know, at least by some religionists, the Bible is simply an account of a tribe, in many aspects of the life of a tribe.

Yes, Jenyar and I have had it out on that topic numerous times. My general position is that Jenyar is far too quick to grant amnesty for the atrocities of the Bible, but hey, as a card-carrying member of Amnesty International, maybe I shouldn't be complaining.

I'm always curious, though. If Osama bin Laden and his followers wrote a book about how God inspired them to kill the infidels and take down a great empire of sin and it was buried in the sand for a few thousand years or so, what would be the result? Would we have soccor moms going to church in the year 5057 reading the "word of God" written by bin Laden? And would they assume that all the massacres and atrocities presented in the book were fully justified simply because the writers of the book said they were? And how different would that be from believing the cruelty in the Bible was justified?

While to me, some passages are very militant for example, if I think of my everyday life and the way I defend myself and the way I treat people who wish to hurt me -- yes, then I can be described as militant too. For example, when I refused to put up with my fairweather Mormon friends and broke all conenctions with them: I indeed regarded them as lying, lowlife scumbags, "to hell" with them if their morality is so vastly different from mine. I rejected them in the name of my morality (= biblical equivalent for "my God's commandments"), and acted in some aggressive and vicious ways (= biblical equivalent of "God's wrath"). All along, I did not feel like I am superior to them though (= biblical equivalent of "love thy enemy").

Well, I can certainly understand the emotion behind that kind of reaction. I often have it when I see President Bush on TV talking about how peaceful he's made the world. All the same, I think intolerance is the root of so much war, murder, and cruelty that I am quite biased toward it. Ha!

Now, I would be a flaming hypocrite, with my Bill Hicks avatar, if I didn't admit that I don't like to hear my "enemies" get verbally lashed occasionally (hey, it's fun!), but part of what turned me off about Christianity was the burden of having to walk around and believe that most people I saw were going to Hell or deserved eternal torture. I found that being Christian meant that I had to also be a judge, constantly scanning the horizon for threats to my worldview. After a while, that grew tiring and I realized my own standards for "judging" people had nothing to do with what I actually thought; they were merely rules drilled into me by my faith.

 

[water]

But why? The bible is based on mythology whereas science is solely based on evidence.

Evidence, oh evidence! The magic word!

Evidence is a matter of statistics, and statistics are inductive, and thus unreliable.

It feels so good saying "I have evidence, while all you have is mythology!", doesn't it?


It used to be "scientific evidence" that spinach the highest level of iron -- but now it is not reliable evidence anymore. It used to be "scientific evidence" that muscles are sore beacuse acid collects in them -- but now there is other evidence ...

This evidence is always changing, so how can it be reliable?!
What is more, even the methods of gathering and analyzing data are many, so how can one depend on them?

In short, the belief in the ultimate power of science is basically just as "mythological" as the belief in other "mythologies".

 

[anotheressence]

Evidence, oh evidence! The magic word!

Evidence is a matter of statistics, and statistics are inductive, and thus unreliable.

It feels so good saying "I have evidence, while all you have is mythology!", doesn't it?


It used to be "scientific evidence" that spinach the highest level of iron -- but now it is not reliable evidence anymore. It used to be "scientific evidence" that muscles are sore beacuse acid collects in them -- but now there is other evidence ...

This evidence is always changing, so how can it be reliable?!
What is more, even the methods of gathering and analyzing data are many, so how can one depend on them?

In short, the belief in the ultimate power of science is basically just as "mythological" as the belief in other "mythologies".

First of all, it can't have use to have been "scientific evidence that this is this", it has to be "there WAS scientific evidence that this was this". Evidence never changes. It is only what you gather from that evidence that changes.


And no, you couldn't be more wrong with that last statement. You are comparing the tool that allows you to TYPE OUT THAT REPONSE to a bunch of words written in a book, that says that some weird magical deity created the Universe on a whim? And that you have to believe what it says or you will be eternally tortured?

Science is here, science is now. You can look around and see Science at work. You cannot look around and see "God" at work.

You can test Science and see it for yourself; prove something stated by Science. You cannot prove anything stated by "God".

Now tell me which one is more credible.

 

[Truth51]

This is pretty much just directed at Christians, since if you have a different view of God it doesn’t really apply.

God presumably wants us to love/worship him and live according to his instructions, since he loves us and we risk hell if we don’t behave/believe properly. If that’s the case, then why doesn’t God make it a point to get noticed? God seems to have created a world in which a reasonable person can look around, think for a while, and conclude that it isn’t necessarily true that God exists. And even if you do believe in a God, it isn’t at all clear which religion is the correct one.

If God were to provide unambiguous evidence that he exists – like, say, writing a page from the Bible every night in the sky in 10 mile high flaming letters – there would probably be zero atheists. So why doesn’t he do something to let us know he’s around?

this one's easy...

God created us so we could love him of our own free will.

If he were to do that, people would just go to churches and try to get on his good side so they wont go to hell.

That is why he's discreet about it; he gives enough evidence of his existence for us to know that he is the way, the truth, and the light, but do you really think that if you refuse to accept his existence, he will reveal himself to you? It happens sometimes, but rarely.

 

[Cris]

Rosa,

Oh yes, my "oversimplified Christian indoctrination". Considering that I grew up in an atheistic family within a strictly Catholic environment, and have been harmed by Christians, "in the name of their righteousness, as I was regarded as bad, being a non-Christian" -- yes indeed, I could say I am under the influence of my oversimplified Christian indoctrination ..........

Interesting history although seemingly irrelevant but are you not currently a Christian then? You are supporting Christian doctrine in your posts therefore you must be currently under the influence of Christian indoctrination, right?

To religionists, God is as real as love, hate, law etc. is real to certain other people.

For example, if you were a member of an indigenous tribe, you'd get yourself expelled from the tribe (if not killed) if you would doubt God.

This is good and demonstrates why science is so important as an independent and objective method for the determination of knowledge. In this light we can see that emotional opinions of religionists are subjective and factually baseless. Also from science we can see clearly that emotions are very real and claims for gods have no basis in fact. And that emphasizes my original point that you disputed that the god concept is nothing more than the creation of human imagination. To show otherwise you merely have to show proof for a god.

Also, give the definition od God you are refering to when you say "God".

I have no definition of God other than it being an imaginative fictional concept created by theists that they cannot clearly define. My only concern is that it represents an entity that either exists or does not and to date no one can show that such an entity exists.

 

[stretched]

Hi SRVP,

Thanks for taking the time to respond and posting the links. Unfortunately I have come across most of these arguments for the historical Jesus before. The first link by Stephen T Davis (http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/davis.htm#Davis) uses the gospels themselves to argue his point that for Christianity to still flourish today, it is essential that we worship the historical Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels. Fair enough. Here, he diminishes his own argument by firstly using the gospels themselves as his entire evidence, and secondly stating clearly that to find evidence, one should start with faith, and that is acceptable. Read below.

From: Why the Historical Jesus Matters - by Stephen T. Davis
“Although theologically orthodox Christians must keep their critical faculties alive, they also approach Scripture with a hermeneutic of trust. This is irritating to nonbelievers and radical critics, who see no reason to treat the Bible any differently than any other book.”

Enough said.

Regarding these links"
(http://www.carlislecofc.org/extrabiblical.htm)
(http://www.probe.org/docs/ancient.html), (http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm)
(http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm), (http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm), (http://www.malaspina.com/site/person_319.asp)

The alleged evidence from ancient non-Christian and apocryphal sources is the usual dose of supposed evidence, but unfortunately most of these documents were compiled well after the death of Jesus, and the early Christian Church had been well established by then. The most often quoted so called “contemporary” commentary on Christ, by Josephus Flavius (37-97AD) is widely considered to be later interpolations (linguistically), but nevertheless he only wrote “Antiquities” in 93CE, after the first gospels were already written. For the rest of the commentary all these people were born well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account. What it boils down to in essence, is that it doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give examples of hearsay.

This link is new to me and interesting and even has an impressive “Research Professor of Philosophy” Dr. William Lane Craig as the author, albeit a professor of Theology. (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html)
And it is a fair argument, but I have a major difference of opinion regarding this statement:
“5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.”

I think this statement is naïve in the face of the inconsistencies found in the gospels. Dr. William Lane Craig derives the bulk of his argument for historical evidence from the gospels, and therefore faith once again is key to these conclusions.

This link (http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html) is based on wishful thinking. Period. But I kinda like its honesty.

The next link (http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/maier3.htm) does more damage to the evidence debate than good. For example, Quote:
“Just as the New Testament is studded with authentic geographical locations, it is also full of genuine personalities who are well known from secular sources outside of the Bible record, including some that are even hostile to Christianity.
 All of the following are Bible characters about whom we know as much, or more, from secular ancient historical records than from the New Testament.
 Roman emperors: Caesar Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius.
 Roman governors: Pontius Pilate, Serguis Paulus, Gallio, Felix, Festus.
 Local rulers: Herod the Great, Archelaus, Herod Antipas, Philip, Herod Agrippa I, Herod Agrippa II, Lysanias, Aretas IV.
 High priests: Annas, Joseph Caiaphas, Ananias.
 Prominent women: Herodias, Salome, Bernice, Drusilla.
 Prominent men: John the Baptist, James the Just. “

A glaring fact is that if these individuals were so well documented, one would assume that a historical individual, who went around raising the dead, would be headline news on a daily basis. This is simple logic. But the reality is that no miracles or raising of the dead were recorded in contemporary writings.

My reasonable conclusion would be that, as Jim Walker sums it up, “all these early historical documents can prove nothing about an actual Jesus but they do show an evolution of belief derived from varied and diverse concepts of Christianity, starting from a purely spiritual form of Christ to a human figure who embodied that spirit, as portrayed in the Gospels. The New Testament stories appears as an eclectic hodgepodge of Jewish, Hellenized and pagan stories compiled by pietistic believers to appeal to an audience for their particular religious times.”
(from: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm)

Allcare.

 

[Cris]

Rosa,

Anotheressence gave a good reply but I’ll also add my comments.

Evidence, oh evidence! The magic word!

Absolutely, and without it you have no idea what you have.

Evidence is a matter of statistics, and statistics are inductive, and thus unreliable.

Evidence can take many forms that can provide both deductive and inductive conclusions. And something with a 99% inductive probability is a far more useful working theory than theistic fictions that have zero probability.

It feels so good saying "I have evidence, while all you have is mythology!", doesn't it?

Absolutely.

It used to be "scientific evidence" that spinach the highest level of iron -- but now it is not reliable evidence anymore. It used to be "scientific evidence" that muscles are sore beacuse acid collects in them -- but now there is other evidence ...

This evidence is always changing, so how can it be reliable?!

What is more, even the methods of gathering and analyzing data are many, so how can one depend on them?

It’s called the learning process and the vast majority of scientific discoveries do not change. The real value of science is that it is prepared to adapt and evolve unlike dogmatic religions that only change when science proves them wrong and even then many die-hard religious fundamentalists refuse to accept reality.

In short, the belief in the ultimate power of science is basically just as "mythological" as the belief in other "mythologies".

Science provides real advantages to real life. Without science you would probably still be living in a cave and would likely die before you were 20. Or more likely you would never have existed since your parents would have died of some ailment now curable by modern medicine. We would also have never landed on the moon had science been mythical and we would not be able to debate through the Internet.

In contrast theistic religions throughout time have not provided anything of any practical value that we could not have achieved through non-religious means. The god concept is entirely redundant and useless.

 

[stretched]

Yo Neildo dude,

Quote Neildo:"Other than paintings and written documents (same things that refer to Jesus), show me that the other JC, Julius Caesar, ever existed. See how silly it is? When it comes to the past, not much can be proven absolute. Funny how we can pick and choose what we want to accept as historical fact though, eh?"

Dude, there are documented contemporary eyewitness accounts of Julie. You are trying to compare apples with rump steak.

Allcare.

 

[HARRY]

To Cris,

thankyou again for your comment's and sorry that I left my reply in a bit of a mess.

Ok here we go. Firstly I wasn't directing the phrase "don't want to believe" to you. It was directed the all the priest etc at the time of Jesus that couldn't believe miracles even if they saw them.
It would be vain for a man of today to ask for proof about the shape of the earth even though it would be very difficult for him to prove it without going into space. We believe many things without having the means to prove it for ourselves. Even the landing of man on the moon was for some debateable so I don't expect you to believe the Bible without evidence. Saying that, if the story's of the Bible are true some evidence has been destroyed for ever like Sodom and Gomorrah. One cannot base matters of faith on evidence alone. In my opinion most of the changes that occur to Christians are of spiritual and psychological nature which is always hard to prove anyway. I was luck to have felt one night a deep sence of peace I had never experienced before, I can't prove it too you now and never will be able to prove it. So much of what Christ did is of similar nature to what I experieced. Does that mean it's not true just because we can't prove it?
In relation to "Blessed are the ..etc" for starter anyone who is lucky enough to believe wholeheartedly in God without doubt and without need for concreate proof have a more hope of entering God's Kingdom. If I told my son that a meteorite was going to hit the earth in a few seconds and we had too hide in the bunker, I would get very angry if he didn't believe me. If on the other hand he took my word for it, it indicates to me and likewise to God that He has the Ability to trust. TRUST is the key word here. We live in a society where trust is considered a joke. This is why I don't blame anyone for not believing in sertain thing's.
Trust is another fruit of Love much lacking in our society.
If you want to believe in God you first have to exersize some trust in Him. To do this one must first be clear in their mind's if the God they want to believe in has a personality or is just some neutral force. If the God you wish to believe in has personality then you have to learn what that personality is. In the case of Christianity a Loving and in some cases justice seeking God (putting it very simply).

To be doubtless in something mean's your have a greater peace of mind. A greater peace of mind means you are better prepared to face a challenge in your life etc. We trust(don't doubt) that the Bungi cable won't snap. If I was terrified with both the fall and the possiblility of the cable snaping chances are I wont jump. So not doubting is in some cases essential to progrees. It shouldn't be used as a scare tactic for Bible bashing.

In the example of the wife I was simply giving you an example of the psycological effects not doubting has.

Believe it or not I like truth just as much as you with the difference that I also seek spiritual truth's that require self analysis and prayer. One should also read the philosophical and spiritual work's available, but at the end of the day you must trust in something greater than yourself and pray.

Fraud in the sence that your are not lieing to yourself or to God.

As I mentioned before Faith without work's is dead. If Christ didn't perform any miricle's then what interest would their be in his claim's, most saint are recorded as performing miracle's otherwise their closeness to God is in Question.

I can't prove what Christ did so I can answer these types of question's. My faith in Chirst is based on personal experience.

Yes million's of people are suffering because we bring it on ourselve's. Can you imagine animal's terminating unwanted children by abortion just because they wanted casual sex. Today abortion is legal tomorrow killing the eldery will be legal as well. Good thing Abraham wasn't around in ourtime's Israel wouldn't even exist.
Yes you can blame God all you like but at least ask him why and if dieing is all that bad, considering the possibility of the afterlife.

Yes prayers are not alway's answered but the question should be directed to God. Their are many such question that are very sensitve to each and every individual. I could say many thing's but it would not reflect every case. Chirst was asked if a serain blind man was born blind due to sin. The answer was something I would never have thought of. So it's important to understand that God treats everyone individualy and in ways only he knows.

In reference to doubting God, I was simply saying that once you have made your choice to believe doubting him will get you knowhere. Most unbelief come's after first believing because following Gods commandment's is not easy. So it's easier to doubt God and be free of sin.

Yes you have a point that it not nice to have a fearfull God but one must understand the spiritual value of fear. Fear according to my understanding came as a result of our sin in paradise. Fear is the result of commiting a crime for exmaple and facing the death penalty. Well instead of the death pentaly man was given a more meaningful mean's of understanding the concequence of sin.
To not love your family and to kill one of it's member's out of jelousy is an example of evil that must be stopped. Disobeying the command to love in this case is disasterous. God in my opinion forsaw that man been given the power of free will would have to live in a world where the consequenses of his actions where very obvious. Even chopping down a forest is disasterous. Why, one could ask is nature so sensitve? Why isn't our world just a lump of rock and why do you need to eat so many different types of food to survive. The sun through photosynthesis would have been sufficent. The answer I believe lies in Gods desire for us to learn to live in harmony with nature and with himself. Both are in essence expression of God's philosophy of how life should be. Nature is finely strung and plays a very complex masterpeice, all we have to do is join in and enjoy. Failing this what do we get? Hell on earth thanks to the greenhouse effect.

Religous claims always should be based on fact. Religious claim should not talk about the shape of the earth anyway. Again a case of bad religion. As in the case of if man came from money's I'm still waiting to see all the fact's. They recently descovered a ancient city in the sea near Japan that apparently it's about 8000 year's old. What else does the sea hide?
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/japan/japan2.html

I'm not for one sided religious education, I would preffer the topic of religion to be a personal matter. But likewise I am against theory's of creation been taught as fact prematurely crossing off the existance of God at the drop of a hat. Very hypocritical, faith is still required to believe in the deep scientific theory's and they are constantly learning more and or debateing their plausibility.

(The statement "modern trend" still hold's).

Just because I don't know all the facts dosn't mean I am quick to believe in lies. When I was young I would have never have guesses that I would be a Christian. Many thing's happend and I still like to remain open minded in many areas that others may be unwilling to comprimise with. I believe that scientificaly we have lots more to learn and I have no intetion to fight science (apart from controversial stuff that effects moral issues).
Science is wonderful and I wish I went to University to study many thing's. All I'm saying is give God a Chance by not taking examples from bad religious practices and generalizing on all religion.

Yes propaganda is a terrible thing but you are missing the point. Modern day Bible bashers are giving all religion a bad name just like a corrupt President can give a bad name to all President's.
I have read book's that indicate to me that Christianity is not what the gerneral public takes it to be. Christianity teaches us to better ourselve's first. If you can't better yourself your preaching is vain. Modern Bible bashers think that just believing in Christ is enough they are very wrong.

Yes thankyou for the information about the history of God. I feel we still have a long way to go in uncovering early history so no need to say anything yet.
Thankyou for correcting me on Einstein, I was thinking of the time he was apparently quoted for saying that being able to explore the universe is just as incredible as the universe itself (something like that).

Again in your opinion the Bible is Mythology. Was the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem Mythology aswell? Jerusalem exists and so does Egypt. I don't know why you are so sure of yourself. The majority of what was written in the Bible can't be proven anyway.

The Bible as a philosophical work is in my book's worth giving a chance.
If you are trully seeking immortality then you need to take all philosophical works seriously. Science may never give you immortality you are wasteing precious time with theory's on the Big Bang. Why care about the Big Bang when we can even prevent war's over who controls the worlds oil.
Likewise if your truly seeking immortality you should read everything I say regardless if it was not one of your question's. Everything I say has a reason and you should alway's look for the reason behind everything.

I feel you are blinded by so called advancement in science and you can't see the science that already exists. Modern science if I not mistaken still dosn't know how the Egyptian's learned such incredible mummification techniques. Nature is a ready made science worth more that any plastic cup made today upsetting the prexisting science of biodegradable product's.

Simple Question I would like the answer for is, why men have deflated breast? To what purpose? Sexual stimulation is that it? Isn't it more logical not to have breast since we can't produce milk? Is nature that stupid?
Maybe nature forsaw men having sex changes and or having babies, so to prepare men psychologicaly nature made sure not to do away with them.

I wish I had all the answers and please continue to seek answers anyway you can.
Regard's
Harry.
ps if any feel's we are cloging up someone else tread please do tell. We can use my thread Partners in Mind.

 

[JustARide]

knowhere.

Sorry to butt into another conversation, but I thought this was a particularly interesting typo. It would make a great title for a book about agnosticism. As far as new postmodern word combinations go, I think "knowhere" is right up there with "circumfession" and "transpolitical."

 

[SVRP]

But that is the point – there is no agreement on such a claim.

"He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." (Josephus, The Antiquities 20.200.)
No scholar has disputed that this passage is authentic. It is consistent with Josephus' writing style.

The claims for Josephus have been accepted as absolute for most of the past 1700 years, the fact that many scholars have quoted such references is not at all surprising but it has only been recently that the passages have come under much closer scrutiny and careful examination. I do not believe any of your quoted writers are working from recent research.

But try this current debate on Josephus http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm

“Doherty’s argument that the early Church had no concept of passing along established tradition is refuted. Indeed, his favoured explanation—that the church obtained its teachings from direct revelation—is similarly weak. The early Christians, though making use of prophecy, were careful to subordinate direct revelation to established tradition. Even Paul, who claimed that his Gospel came directly from God, recognized that he had to subordinate his revelation to established tradition. Paul is also clear that the Gospel he preached was the same that the other Apostles were preaching. Accordingly, from Doherty’s own examples as well as from Papias, Luke, and the writings of Paul, we learn that the early Church did have an established tradition that was handed down by those who had witnessed Jesus—and this established tradition set the mark by which new revelation was judged.”(From http://www.bede.org.uk/price4.htm)

And it is quite obvious that you’ re depending your view on someone who already has presuppositions and can’t do the proper research. The above historians I mentioned are the foremost and up-to-date on any of historical research. All you have to do is check them out yourself.

And consider this in terms of perspective and credibility – Josephus wrote many detailed volumes covering the events of some 2000 years ago over some 8 decades. Had Jesus actually existed we would have expected there to be far more in Josephus’ writings than two disputed statements one of which we know is of Christian origin. Josephus represents the only potential independent eye-witness for the existence of Jesus and that evidence is tentative and delicate. And given the overwhelming silence from any other independent source we seem to be faced with a significant credibility issue regarding the historicity of Jesus.

Doherty concludes with –

Although it may well be that we owe Josephus’ survival through the Middle Ages to the unknown Christian interpolator who gave us the Testimonium, it is time to release Josephus from his Christian captivity—and from the bonds of those who continue to claim him as a witness to the existence of an historical Jesus. But if the weight of argument would impel us to acknowledge that Josephus seems to have made no reference at all to Jesus, what implications do we draw from this?

Here is a Jewish historian who was born and grew up in Judea shortly after Pilate’s tumultous governorship, with its presumed crucifixion of a Jewish sage and wonder worker, a man whose followers claimed had risen from the dead and who gave rise to a vital new religious sect. Here is an historian who remembers and records in his work with staggering efficiency and in voluminous detail the events and personalities and socio-political subtleties of eight decades and more. Can we believe that Josephus would have been ignorant of this teaching revolutionary and the empire-wide movement he produced, or that for some unfathomable reason he chose to omit Jesus from his chronicles?

Destroying the credibility of the Josephus references inevitably places a very strong nail in the coffin of the historical Jesus.

Not according to Edwin Yamauchi, Ph.D., of Miami University at Oxford, Ohio, who considers there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus did exist, and all these hypothetical questions are really very vacuous and fallacious. Josephus was interested in political matters and the struggle against Rome, so for him John the Baptist was more important because he seemed to pose a greater political threat than did Jesus.
“Jesus didn’t even object to paying taxes to the Romans. Therefore because Jesus and his followers didn’t pose an immediate threat, it’s understandable that Josephus isn’t more interested in this sect- even though in hindsight it turned out to be very important indeed.” (Quote from Edwin Yamauchi in Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ, pg.81.)

This needs a different thread if you wish to pursue this again.

Please start one if you want to.