I don’t know why I bother to argue with you, but let’s try this anyway. There are tons of people who believe that the Bible (including the Old Testament) is the divine inspired word of God, and hence everything in it is completely accurate. So no, I won’t “get over it.”
Yes, brilliant argumentative technique here. I’m so impressed.
Okay, let me explain how science works. I know I’m wasting my time on you, but this should be beneficial to others reading this thread.
In an ideal world, every new idea or claim should be thoroughly tested to see if it’s accurate. But we know that there are practical limitations to this. If somebody has a new idea about how the universe formed, but testing it will cost 10 billion dollars, it’s going to be a long road to hoe before he can actually get it tested. This is why we proceed by bite-sized pieces. In this case:
The scientist would write a proposal, detailing his theory: how it explains current observations better than existing theories, what other observations could verify it, how it can be tested, etc.
He tries to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, where a team of referees decides whether it is sufficiently well-researched to be published.
If it is, it’s published. Then, thousands of scientists from around the world look over the theory and criticize it.
After a long time, if it gets enough support in the scientific community, it may actually get tested.
Usually, it is tested bit-by-bit. Nobody shells out the whole 10 billion right away. Instead, they ask: “Can we test part of this theory for less money?” If it passes this test, then they proceed to do larger, more extensive, and more expensive tests, right up to the final one which is necessary to “prove” said theory.
Now, if you’re not a scientist, you’ll have a big step 0 to get through, namely getting anyone to pay attention to your theory in the first place. Fortunately, there are tons of masochists on sci.physics and other newsgroups who would be more than happy to critique any theory anyone has to offer. If enough of them find it acceptable, they can help pass it on to the real scientific community.
This is how your stupid little “Live like a bum for six weeks and you’ll become a Christian” test fails miserably. You fail to provide an explanation of how/why it works. You fail to give any real evidence that it does work, beyond anecdotal evidence. (E.g., A study of X people showed that Y% had increased religious faith after experiencing a period of homelessness.) And you fail to provide any smaller steps along the way. Instead, you just say: “Do it. Trust me. It’ll work.” Sorry, that’s not how it works. I think everyone here (except for you, of course) will agree that it is incredibly stupid to do anything drastic based upon the recommendation of one person on the Internet. I will be happy to investigate any claims you have of the miraculous, up to a certain amount of commitment on my part.
I’ve asked Randy to post his best miracle. Once he does, I’ll be willing to do some research on it. I may invest a few hours of my time. If the miracle looks pretty legit, then I’ll be willing to invest more time, and perhaps even some money investigating it. The stronger the evidence gets, the more I’ll invest, up to the point of dedicating my entire life to Christianity should the evidence be strong enough. But I have to proceed stepwise.
If you don’t see why this is, then I suggest that you give me all your money and material possessions. I guarantee that this will prove to you that my worldview is correct.
Besides the fact that Jesus is dead and those other people are alive (as sojourn26 pointed out), there’s yet another niggling little detail:
If those other people don’t live up to the trust you have put in them (and the meaning of the word faith is actually “trust” in this context), they can be punished for it. If the doctor doesn’t know what he’s doing, he can be sued for malpractice. If a driver runs a stop sign because of defective brakes or not paying attention, he can be ticketed at the least or convicted of vehicular manslaughter at the worst.
But if Jesus doesn’t live up to His promises, whatcha gonna do? Who ya gonna call? There is no court of law that can punish the Son of God.
Is Jesus God or is God Jesus? I keep forgetting. And how about relating to the new folks here your claim that, more than once, food was miraculously provided for you?
Here’s another thing: Most people AREN’T irresponsible nuts. You CAN trust that they’ll drive properly because most of them want to get where they’re going just as you do! There are a few nuts, sure, but that’s no reason to believe they all are.
Frankly, it’s self-centered and arrogant to think that no one knows how to drive safely but you.
Just don’t tell anyone. My bathroom is cramped enough without a dozen women in kerchiefs in there saying the Muslim rosary all day.
Jesus did that already
The Book of John was included in the canon by the Holy Roman Catholic Church 1700 years ago, and it was widely pulicated for a few hundred years before that. The theory I am disseminating here, essentially that disordered appetites hamper mans knowledge of God, has also been taught as a part of their basic catechisis:
Plenty of people have looked at Christianity for nearly two thousand years and critized it.
Various people have tested this theory, and found it to be true. Too many to name, in fact. If no one had ever found what Christ taught to be true, by now there would be little reason to go on debating it.
God did reveal his divine plan to man gradually, which is what the Old Testement attests to.
This has been a historical problem the Catholic Church has had for a long time, which can often be attributed to the leadership’s own lack of diligence. (They otherwise call the failure of people who call themselves Catholics to actually pay attention to what the Church teaches a “mystery.”)
I might give that a shot.
Newton never explained why gravity worked, nor has anyone since. I don’t see why this is any different.
The parameters of my test have nothing to do with merely being poor or even exposed to the elements. However, everyone I have met and the writings of those long dead who have kept Jesus’s teachings for some period of time have gotten the same results. It is difficult to do a study on such a small segment of the population, especially when its members are a loosely knit collection of wanderers.
Like I said, you don’t have to take my word for it. Mainstream Christianity has taught this for two thousand years.
The so-called “Bible Code” was applied to Moby Dick and the assassinations of JFK, Indira Ghandi, MLK Jr., Leon Trotsky, Lincoln, and Yitzhak Rabin were found “hidden” in the text. I guess God wrote Dick and not Herman Melville. :rolleyes: Or maybe Melville was psychic? Yeah, that’s it!!!
I’m reminded of the adage never to wrestle with a pig: you’ll just get dirty and the pig will like it. But somehow I can’t avoid this living trainwreck which is jmullaney.
Every religion in existence tells you that if you just try it, you’ll see that they’re right. Mormons have the “way of Moroni.” Hindus tell you to try various types of yoga. And jmullaney tells you to give away all your possessions.
So, here are my questions for him:
How many people do you know of who have tried your test?
How many of them did not profess belief in Jesus as the son of God before, but ended up doing so because of said test?
Do you know of anyone, either personally or anecdotally, who tried this test and did not end up professing Jesus to be the son of God?
Have you conducted any systematic study, controlling for all relevant variables?
Have you compared your test to other tests? For example, how many individuals do you know who were non-Hindus, practiced yoga for many years, and became Hindus because the practice opened their minds to God?
I’d also like to note how good jmullaney is at avoided/changing key arguments/words. He says that I don’t have to take his word, because mainstream Christianity has been teaching the same thing for 2000 years. I’d like to see his evidence that mainstream Christians have advocated giving away all of one’s worldly possessions as the way to discovering that their religion is true.
IIRC, jmullaney has argued that those who keep Christ’s teachings are Christians, even if they don’t know so. Based upon this absurd definition, his test is guaranteed to work, because Jesus advocated giving away all one had. Therefore, anyone who does this is de facto a Christian.
Masochistically awaiting another quasi-lucid reply…
We seem to be beating a dead horse here. The reason that Ooner posted this Thread is because he had never seen a miracle. I replied that God is not a Showman, He doesn’t reveal Himself this way much. I said that miracles happen, they are recorded in books but there’s not alot of “documentation” on them. You keep demanding hard evidence.
Let me ask you this though Opus1, what if God did show you a miracle? What if, for example, you were out one night and you asked God to give you some proof that He was real. Lets say at that moment the sky lit up for a second, or a brilliant star shot past you, or you heard a voice, “I am God, here I am”. Let’s say for example a good friend of yours got sick, cancer, and he went and got prayer at a believing church and when he went back for treatment, the doctors said there was no sign of cancer. What would happen then? Would you believe? Would you serve God, and believe on Him through thick and thin, for the rest of your life, or in a couple months, when the first miracle wore off, or at the first sign of trouble, would you need another one to make you believe again? How many miracles would God have to do, to MAKE EVERYONE serve Him, love Him and believe in Him?
Actually, that’s incorrect. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and Ethan Allen were all deists, not Christians. John Adams was a Unitarian. All emphasis in below quotes is mine.
“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion; . . .” - Article XI, Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary (Treaty of Tripoli), signed by President Washington
“[Ashbel Green, Presbyterian minister] often said in my hearing, though very sorrowfully, of course, that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist.” - Arthur B. Bradford, Presbyterian minister
“Washington was no infidel, if by infidel is meant unbeliever. Washington had an unquestioning faith in Providence and, as we have seen, he voiced this faith publicly on numerous occasions. That this was no mere rhetorical flourish on his part, designed for public consumption, is apparent from his constant allusions to Providence in his personal letters. There is every reason to believe, from a careful analysis of religious references in his private correspondence, that Washington’s reliance upon a Grand Designer along Deist lines was as deep-seated and meaningful for his life as, say, Ralph Waldo Emerson’s serene confidence in a Universal Spirit permeating the ever shifting appearances of the everyday world.” - Paul F. Boller, Jr., Washington and Religion
“During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” - James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
“Some books against Deism fell into my hands. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short I soon became a perfect Deist.” - Benjamin Franklin, his autobiography
“No man on earth has less taste or talent for criticism than myself, and the least and last of all should I undertake to criticize works on the Apocalypse (Revelations). It was between fifty and sixty years since I read it and then I considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherence of our own nightly dreams. I was, therefore, well pleased to see, in your first proof sheet, that it was said to be not the production of St. John, but of Cerinthus a century after the death of that apostle. Yet the change of the author’s name does not lessen the extravagancies of the composition; come they from whomsoever they may, I cannot so far respect them as to consider them as an allegorical narration of events, past or subsequent. There is not coherence enough in them to countenance any suite of national ideas. You will judge, therefore, from this how impossible I think it that either your explanation or that of any man in ‘the Heavens above or on the earth beneath’ can be a correct one. What has no meaning admits no explanation!” - Thomas Jefferson: In His Own Words, page 360
“RELIGION: Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand shake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first the religion of your own country. Read the bible then, as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy and Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature does not weigh against them. But those facts in the bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from god. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature in the case he relates. For example in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine therefore candidly what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis as the earth does, should have stopped, should not only by that sudden stoppage have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time have resumed its revolution, and that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth’s motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities? You will next read the new testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions 1. of those who say he was begotten by god, born of a virgin, suspended and reversed the laws of nature at will, and ascended bodily into heaven: and 2. of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition by being gibbeted according to the Roman law which punished the first commission of that offense by whipping, and the second by exile or death.” - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Peter Carr
"Every person, of whatever religious denomination he may be, is a Deist in the first article of his Creed. Deism, from Latin Deus, God, is the belief of a God, and this belief is the first article of every man’s creed.
"It is on this article, universally consented to by all mankind, that the Deist builds his church, and here he rests. Whenever we step aside from this article, by mixing it with articles of human invention, we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty and fable, and become exposed to every kind of imposition by pretenders to revelation.
"But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God. Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work.
“The Deist needs none of those tricks and shows called miracles to confirm his faith, for what can be a greater miracle than the creation, and his own existence?” - Thomas Paine
“The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.” - Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, page 187
“It is only in the Creation that all our ideas and conceptions of a Word of God can unite. The Creation speaks a universal language, independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be. It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this Word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.” - Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
“Those who invalidate reason, ought seriously to consider, whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle, that they are laboring to dethrone, but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.” - Ethan Allen, Reason: The Only Oracle of Man
“Such people as can be prevailed upon to believe, that their reason is depraved, may easily be led by the nose, and duped into superstition at the pleasure of those, in whom they confide, and there remain from generation to generation; for when they throw away the law of reason, the only one which God gave them to direct them in their speculations and duty, they are exposed to ignorant or insidious teachers, and also to their own irregular passions, and to the folly and enthusiasm of those about them, which nothing but reason can prevent or restrain; nor is it a rational supposition that the commonality of mankind would ever have mistrusted, that their reason was depraved, had they not been told so, and it is whispered about, that the first insinuation of it was from the Priests.” - Ethan Allen, Reason: The Only Oracle of Man
I’m saying that you’re gullible for believing in violations of natural law upon exceedingly skimpy evidence.
You next continue with a large argument from authority, which you can’t even get right, listing several deists. Yawn.
This is totally circular reasoning. The Bible is correct, therefore only Christian miracles come from Yahweh. A Muslim could say the same thing:
WHO is doing the miracles? Who is he giving credit to? Is the person doing them living a Qur’anically Muslim life? Does what he says, match up with what the Qur’an says?
I have no clue what you mean by this. When you say that other “gods” exist, do you mean that they exist like Madonna or George W. Bush exist: real actual beings? Or do they exist in some sort of vague metaphysical sense that you’ll need to explain to me? Do you want me to show you some Bible verses denying the existence of any God but Yahweh?
Regardless of what you mean by other gods existing, this only confirms in my mind your gullibility. You believe that natural law is violated, and that such violations do not always come from Yahweh. This is just absurd.
Damn you’re gullible! Now you’re telling me you don’t have any documentation whatsoever of any miracle, and yet you believe in them! If somebody were to tell you that many people were routinely abducted by aliens, but provided no evidence, would you believe him?
How did a Chemoshian prophet speak to Mesha if there was no Ashtar-Chemosh to speak? And, if you actually knew something about the Bible and the Moabite stone, you’d realize that it doesn’t confirm all the Old Testament history. It contradicts it when it says that the God Ashtar-Chemosh was responsible for the Moabite conquest as a reward to the Moabites. The Bible says that Yahweh was responsible for the defeat, in order to punish the Israelites. I suggest you read the article to see just how similar the Bible and the Moabite stone are, and why it is irrational to accept one as the word of God, and dismiss the other as the superstitious ravings of a primitive people: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1995/3/3claim95.html
I would believe that there exists some being more powerful than us, but a miracle would not convince me that this same creature also created the universe, is the father of Jesus, answers prayers, etc.
This is not a miracle.
Not a miracle.
Depends on the nature of the voice, whether I can conduct further communication with it, etc. But I don’t think that hearing a voice is proof of God’s existence, considering that other people could be near by yanking my chain, or that there could be a tape player, etc.
About 1/10000 cancers go into spontaneous remission. A far greater number are cured through modern science. I thus conclude that even if God does exist, he is less powerful than doctors, and hardly worth worshipping. But considering that this is not impossible, I would not take it as evidence of a deity, no.
If God were to show me one (1) truly miraculous miracle, I would believe. What would qualify? Lame stuff like curing diseases that often cure themselves doesn’t count. Nor do lucky coincidences. Shooting stars are really poor evidence. Things which we know to be physically impossible would have to occur. God could, for example, alter the speed of light so that it is different all over the world, in a way that is measurable and confirmable by thousands of different scientists. He could, for one day, make ice heavier than water, so that everyone on the planet could see the miracle by putting ice cubes in a glass of water and watching them sink. He could be really miraculous by exempting our oceans and lakes from this miracle, so that the environment would not be harmed. The case of the man without a heart which I posted is a good example of a miracle which I would take as good evidence of something powerful.
But I do not need a miracle to believe in God. A miracle would prove to me the existence of some greater power. But the Judeo-Christian God is typically defined as being the all powerful, all knowing, all good creator of the universe. A miracle would give some evidence of the first part, but not of the last three.
The bottom line is that I would not require a miracle to believe, nor would a miracle prove that the Judeo-Christian God exists. But I find people who believe in miracles to be extremely gullible, especially when they can provide no evidence of their claims. I generally toss them into the same category as those who believe in psychic energy, alien abductions, and a host of other unsubstantiated, paranormal nonsense.
Interesting round of arguments. First, let me dispose of one slight miscue:
Jab commented:
Which is by no means the first time he’s played the Jesus vs. God argument in religious discussions. I have a lot of respect for Jab’s capabilities in thoughtfully arguing the atheist viewpoint, even on the Pizza Parlor (though not under his real name) .
But, Jab, I need to take you to task on this one. You would be highly offended at somebody “refuting” one of your points by wilfully confusing “mammal” and “animal” or “Paleocene” and “Paleozoic,” or by suggesting that since floods cause small and localized rapid depositions, therefore all deposition anywhere was caused by Noah’s Flood (yeah, I’ve been looking at that thread, and running screaming from the room).
So here you’re insisting on not playing by the definitions formulated by the expert theorists. It is not necessary to buy into the dogma of the Trinity to accept it as the basis on which orthodox Christians make their arguments. And what it says is that there is one unary God – a single entity in the head-honcho position vis-a-vis the universe – who in some manner makes Himself known to mankind in three Persons – under three heads, as it were – the Father God of the Old Testament and to whom Jesus refers, the Son who is incarnate in human form (avatar) as Jesus of Nazareth, and the Holy Spirit, a rather tougher thing to analogize but simply God working within the individual’s mind/“heart” (metaphorically)/spirit. So whatever Jesus does is what God does, and vice versa, allowing for the distinction of persons. (E.g., Jesus can pray to the Father as demonstrative of what men should do vis-a-vis God, since he was a man too, but was himself God in human form doing so.)
It’s a counterintuitive concept, to be sure, but it’s what Christians propose as accurate description of the inner composition of God. So while you can argue against it, from either logical or metaphysical grounds, it is “against the rules” to suggest that Christians believe, e.g., in God being placated by torturing somebody else – we believe that He gave Himself over to death by torture.
Would you consider that a fair cavil on your posts, sir? I’m saying, disagree overtly with the idea, or allow it for the sake of argument within orthodox doctrine, but don’t argue against an orthodox position without refuting the idea, or at least explicitly rejecting it.
Now, to business. In any research endeavor, one has a variety of sources for one’s acceptance of data as accurate: (1) personal experience or experimentation; (2) authority; (3) critical study, and (4) reason, come to mind. One knows, for example, the route between work or school and home through having travelled it. One need not take this on authority or look it up on Expedia; it’s a part of personal experience. The atom-smasher exchange above is a case of taking things on authority. Cloud-chamber tracks require at least a minimal amount of schooling in atomic physics to interpret accurately, otherwise they are just lines. But most people would accept the analysis of persons who have made a career on studying atomic physics. Finally, someone trained in historical analysis who reviews a work and determines that the data presented therein are effectively stated within the best skills of current historical research is adequate grounds for accepting his premises and those of the book he critically reviews as the best we can do at present towards establishing what actually happened in that particular portion of history under study. Similar to the “authority” position, but with the added fillip of skeptical analysis on an uncertain subject matter.
Given that, let me suggest the following scenario: A person trained in medical reportage and skeptical analysis of claims investigates a situation where there have been reports, some conflicting, of miraculous cures and the preaching of God’s power at hand. On investigation, the person finds there to be validity behind some of the claims, and becomes a believer, writing up the findings in a couple of books.
Dollars to donuts, whoever’s followed that last paragraph is thinking, “he’s going to suggest the accuracy of the Gospel According to Luke.” And while there’s truth to that, I phrased it carefully to also speak about the work of Emily Gardiner Neal, who was a skeptical reporter with a medical beat a couple of decades ago who investigated the “faith healing” claims and wrote a couple of books about her findings, buying into the reality of some of them and becoming an active Christian believer.
Finally, the idea that there is a God who is active in the universe he created but who does most of his work through the agency of the people he calls, which is very solid Christian doctrine, suggests that the very definition of “miracle” used by most of us is out to lunch. Eleven years ago next month I had acute coronary-artery problems that would kill me sooner or later unless corrected. A believer laid hands on me and I was cured of it. And to me it makes no difference that that believer was a cardiac surgeon and the hands he laid on me involved using his skills to move veins from my legs to bypass the blocked arteries – he was doing healing in God’s name. And the results of that and the things that happened to me in consequence constitute a miracle in my life, and not one event in it involved a supernatural occurrence that a skeptic would wish to debunk. For the record, the point in time when I was coming out of the anesthetic after surgery, I had been scheduled to read a passage from Ezekiel at our church’s Easter Vigil service: “I will take away your heart of stone; I will give you a new heart and a new spirit.” Allowing arterial plaque to stand for stone, a fair equivalence in my book, that is exactly what happened to me. His gift to me, and a miracle. Regardless of the fact that no angels heralded it, there was not a supernatural event of any sort involved (other than the “new spirit” – a subjective feeling on my part that I will avow happened but on which no objective judgment is possible).
So, while Randy is buying into some claims that are, to say the least, subject to debunkery, he is not as a whole wrong.
And the point that, because a Christian might claim that the situation where a man happens to be driving down the road with a full gas can and rescues the people who ran out of gas is in fact a “miracle of convergence,” because the people asked God for help and he as God’s agent provided it, and the skeptic will say that it’s one of those coincidences that can be expected to happen from time to time, neither is completely wrong; each has a point on his side – and there’s a third viewpoint that doesn’t often get expressed: Synchronicity – that viewpoint (a) might be accurate even if there is no God orchestrating the event.
I’ve said before that “faith” is not subscribing to some series of unprovable propositions; it’s putting one’s trust in a God whose reality is clear to you for one or more of the reasons rational people evaluate ideas and accept them: you may have had a “religious experience,” you may accept the testimony of the Bible or of preachers or other believers, or you may buy into the historical evaluation critically and decide that there is truth behind the smoke and mirrors. Or, of course, any two or three of these.
Finally, there are more than two ways to read the Bible. Randy would presumably argue strongly for a fairly literalist standpoint. And Jab or Czarcasm would assume that some of the off-the-wall stories in it and the abhorrent practices attributed to God’s command suggest that it’s the work of men of their time, no better or worse than others, who purported that God commanded them to slay all the Amelekites, or sent two bears to eat 42 children who mocked His prophet, or whatever.
But things like midrash need to be taken into account too. Stylistically, the writers of the Bible were working in the Hebrew tradition of writing, and a story need not be reported verbatim to carry a meaning of some importance; fables based on historical figures were quite within the realm of accepted practice. (Paging Parson Weems; there’s a cherry tree down!) So the idea that Jesus might not have somehow changed water into wine, transformed a few loaves and fishes into dinner for 5,000 folks, or blasted a fig tree, but there was a meaning behind those stories that was what the writer wanted to convey, would justify to them including them in their books. We must be cautious not to do “Whig history” in which everything has to be evaluated by today’s standards. “True or false” is not a valid question about, say, an Aesop or la Fontaine fable – nobody seriously believes that a mouse extracted a thorn from a lion’s paw and later was saved by that same lion; everybody hears that as emblematic of “what goes around comes around” as regards doing a kindness to another. And it’s not out of line to suggest that that is accurate of writers working in a similar tradition either. Gaudere never meant that she had personally met a rabbi whom God had damned to Hell for his sins, who rejoiced because he could now be sure of loving God for Himself and not at least slightly in hope of buying him off." And the story loses nothing from being a classic “midrash” story. So that approach to criticism is worth looking at.
I did a web search on “way of moroni” and only had 18 hits, almost all of which were akin to “By the way, Moroni 7:1 says…” I don’t find Mormons to be the type of people to keep things secret, so please explain.
As for Hinduism, some sects do have an asectic marga through which followers of it would attain a knowledge of Brahman and attain moshkra. Via la difference.
That I know now? None, but I confess I only currently know about thirty people.
Other than myself (although I had an open mind) I don’t know any.
That is entirely possible. Different cultures have different names for… well, He/She-is-He/She-who-is. I have never heard of anyone who ended up an atheist.
I am always looking for volunteers.
There may be other paths to the knowledge of God.
You mean, beyond what I posted last time? I thought that covered it pretty well. OK, again from the catchism:
Better? I mean, the idea that sin separates a person from God is hardly original with me.
I have only repeated what Jesus himself says, that anyone who keeps his comandments loves him and is loved by God and God will reveal himself to them.
I don’t know how you can say that unless you have so quickly forgotten the nature of the hypothesis!
Thanks Polycarp for getting this thing back on track. I got lost there for awhile.
I’ve seen with my own eyes lots of these miracles. My sister was healed of Epilepsy when she was in her teens, by the laying on of hands. During such prayer I have felt an “electrical charge” feeling, start at the top of my head and go right on out through my feet during my healing. Money has come in when we needed it. I’ve seen a man instantaneously regain hearing in an ear. I know a woman personally who was healed of Diabetes after a visit from Jesus while she was in the hospital. I’ve seen miraculous gifts in practice. I could go on.
But Opus1 doesn’t believe any of that. He believes in “diseases curing themselves”, which admittedly cancer does go into remission at times, and “lucky coincidences”. He needs Documentation. I can tell him what I’ve seen with my eyes, but I can’t place documentation for it here. He asked me what the biggest miracle I have seen, that I would like to debate on the SDMB. How can I debate them?
That’s not the point I was trying to make anyway. I was trying to say that God doesn’t usually draw people to him through miracles. Seeing a miracle will NOT produce Faith in anyone.
By the way…this quote from George Washington from “Haley’s Bible Handbook”.
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"
From that quote, it looks like the “Deity” he believed in was the one in the Bible.
How would you feel if somebody told you that the only evidence he had for alien abductions was his own experience? Would you believe him? How about somebody who told you that he had seen Elvis yesterday? Do you understand why anecdotal evidence and personal testimony is not valid?
I’ve searched all over the web and cannot find one independent confirmation of that quote - I’ve also seen it referenced as being in his farewell address (it isn’t) and in his daily prayer diary (where does one find this?). I even did a text search of his written works and transcriptions at http://www.virginia.edu – with no luck.
Randy - if you have a citation for that quote, I’d like to see it (aside from a third party). I’ve already found that Christian sites saying it was his farewell address are, well, from what I can tell, dead wrong - I’d like to see the truth behind all of it whatever it may be.
Furthermore, in Chapter 3 of Six Historic Americans (1906), author John E. Remsburg gives rather convincing proof that George Washington was not a Christian. Chapter 5 strongly suggests that Abraham Lincoln wasn’t, either.
Thanks. Why is The Pizza Parlor down? I haven’t been able to get into it since Friday.
My problem is that I don’t understand the definitions. Does God suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder? It’s the only way that God could know something that Jesus doesn’t (the time of the Second Coming and Judgment Day.) (Of course, the more likely possiblility is that Jesus was the merely-human son of a woman named Mary and no more the Son of God than you or I and that he never performed miracles.) It’s like I said on The Pizza Parlor before it went down: Metaphysics makes my head swim; quantum mechanics makes more sense to me.
(I realize it can be a poor argument to say, “I don’t understand it; therefore it isn’t valid.” But it’s not necessarily a poor argument. Assume you are a chemist; if you don’t understand how water can be transformed into wine, chances are it never happened. Assume you are an astronomer; if you don’t understand how the Earth could have stood still for a day, chances are it never happened. I am not a scientist, but I think I’ve read enough science books to understand the principles.)
I understand. You have to know what the dogma is before you can refute it. Or agree with it, for that matter.
I have understood all along. When I was 15 yrs old my parents, afer having been in a kind of “dead” church for most their life, began STUDYING the Bible along with friends of theirs. They discovered things that they had never realized before; the gifts of the Spirit.
I have seen these things since then and I am 41 yrs old now. Many, many things. So you can see where I find it hard to understand someone just refusing to believe something because they have never seen it, or think it’s ridiculous. And I understand your skeptism, and the “alien abduction” example you used. I think the BIG difference is this. How many people claim alien abduction? I might be surprised at the number, but I would guess in the U.S. maybe hundreds, and worldwide maybe thousands, if that. There are THOUSANDS of folks in the U.S., maybe tens of thousands who have seen the gifts of the Spirit in action, (which include healing, words of knowledge, prophecy…etc.) (again I’m guessing) and millions worldwide. IF that many people started reporting alien abductions, it would be something that I would have to start looking in to.
In Korea, and South America in the last few years they have witnessed “miracle crusades” where the power of God has been turned loose on people who have never really heard the Gospel of Jesus before, stadiums full of people. The thing that touches me most is seeing children getting healed. They are genuine in that way, you know, why would they fake it? This is all reported in many books and Christian publications, but again, not notarized.
Sadly, another reason that widespread miracles amy not be occuring in the U.S. is the state of Christians here. We seem to be slackers.
Oh, and what I meant by other Gods was other spiritual powers or forces. super_head
Sorry the only cite I have for that quote is out of the book I mentioned, “Halley’s Bible Handbook”, which gives the quote, but no references to go with it. The reason I give it credibility is because the first edition of this book was printed in 1924, and I have the sixteenth edition (1944) and the seventy-sixth edition printed in 1993. I kinda reasoned that by now they would’ve had time to work the bugs out. But, I’ll concede that one.
.