Of course I am. We were discussing the possibility of rolling only 6 forever. Remember?
Well, then we have a problem. X!=0 and Y!=0 do not entail X=Y by a number of pretty reasonable ways of thinking of this.
Moriah
I could address this in two different ways. The first way would be to point out that the OT is supposed to the word of god and that the prophets supposedly spoke the word of God as well. If Jesus is part of the Godhead then Jesus spoke the words in the OT.
Or if you want to go the other way and say that the Bible is not the word of God, then nothing attributed to Jesus in the NT can be relied upon as genuine. After all, it’s not quite true to assert that Jesus spoke those words, they are the words that the authors of the Gospels claimed that he spoke. So you have to find a way to argue that the authors of the NT are somehow inherently more reliable than the authors of the OT or your point fails.
Love the juxtaposition there.
Also, matt, let’s be especially careful. “No, he said he thought he had [spotted him even before his time to reveal himself].” What he said was that if the messiah has come again, he thinks this is the guy who could do it. It’s a very careful distinction.
Oh, and it’s rather unremarkable even if Poly’s going to stake more certainty to it. Remember John, the as-yet unborn child who leapt in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary visited? Poly’s got 55+ years on an unborn child recognizing the (purported) Son of God. John, without the benefit of being able to physically sense much of anything outside Elizabeth’s womb, recognized the Christ child inside another human being (me, I think it just makes for a fun story, but if we’re going to take the Bible literally…). I don’t see anyone denouncing that particular story, so why are some of us jumping on Poly for saying he thinks he knows who the messiah might be if that person is already on earth? Let’s give the man, who’s been here more than four years and is one of the more well-respected, well=spoken and well-read people many of us have ever met, a chance to explain what he means before we make a pile-on we’ll end up regretting.
That’s not what I’m contending. I’m saying that we don’t have the requisite data to complete an equation. We have no way of knowing which has a lower probability therefore we have no basis for a conclusion that Poly’s speculations are any less plausible than Scottichers’s beliefs.
What I’m trying to do here is show that those Christians who are chiding Poly for his apostasy have no logical high ground to attack him from.
I say they have no real reason for chiding him to begin with even if he is “apostate.” I mean, he was pretty apostate to begin with, what with all that hanging around with homosexuals and all. And what’s it to them, anyway?
That sort of black and white argument makes sense in fundie-land. Poly isn’t supposed to be a fundie. We’re trying to figure out why Poly, the voice of mainline reason, suddenly jumped ship into the waters of crazy fundie mythology.
That’s the ‘black’ of ‘black and white.’ Mainline Christianity does not polarize the entirety of all the writings that wound up into the bound anthology called ‘The Bible’ as an “either all true or all false” statement of veracity.
In general, and for lots of very good scholarly reasons too complicated to go into, mainline Christian put more stock into the very words of Jesus as imperfectly remembered as they may be than into the words of the OT prophets. Mainline Christians do not have a house of cards obsession with the varying degrees of truth statements in the Bible. That’s why Mainline Christines are comfortable with regarding Adam and Noah as myths and Jesus and Paul as real historical figures.
Peace.
I mean, come on. The only reason for the handwringing I’ve heard is, “We won’t be able to trust his opinion on the Bible anymore!”
Well, my mom is a Christian, and I’d expect them to listen respectfully to her views on the Bible; but if “if the Messiah were now on earth, I bet he’d be this cute gay guy” is enough to send them into this much of a tizzy, I bet she’s got some beliefs about the Godhead that would curl their hair.
takes breath
I think the Goddess and the God are a convenient way of expressing the diversity of the universe/Deity; I think it’s pretty unfortunate that that polarity ends up being gendered through this metaphor; and I think there are probably better ways of expressing it that might be more relevant to gender- and sexuality-variant people.
waits patiently for the Wiccans to attack
continues to wait
(Can I also say that I find it very odd that Poly is being accused of fundamentalism for not taking the Bible literally?)
No, that is not appearing in glory, that’s appearing in fantabulosity!
And what the hell are you doing slinking before you put on the skin tight dress? Didn’t your “Big Gay Drag Queen Mamma Mentor” teach you when you were and weren’t supposed to slink?
Sheesh. Kids today.
==========
Seriously, ‘appearing in glory’ is code for ‘appearing in my resurrected form.’ Sort of precludes some teenager on the internet. Also other phrases like ‘appearing from the clouds’ also precludes ‘from another womb.’
Lotta logical gymnastics going on to save everyone’s favorite hero. But, gotta admit, his statement in question is most definitely way, way, way outside the norm. In a religion of 2 billion, we’re talking a minority opinion of a handful (WRT this particular person may the The One).
Peace.
So are you saying that your personal set of beliefs about Christianity make you a minority of more than one?
Girl, if you know what you doing, you can slink in sackcloth. A lady can be told just by looking.
In what way?
Matt has almost got it. The 2+2=5 thing is a red herring because 2+2=5 is part of a mathematical system. To put it in loose terms, one does not reason inductively about mathematical systems so there is no evidence to evaluate to determine if 2+2=5 or not. In effect, 2+2 =4 is part of the definition of the mathematical system we use.
BTW, just to confuse things, I certainly could postulate a coherent mathematics where 2+2=5. I’d really prefer not to get into how here as this would be serious hijack.
It is also largely beside the point. Bayesian statistics is most easily employed in areas, like physics, where there are numerical predictions being tested. However, it can be applied to assign truth values to any proposition which must be evaluated by means of emperical evidence.
The reason you don’t see Bayesian statistics applied to events that violate the laws of physics is that the idea of something “violating the laws of physics” is meaningless in this context. The point is to figure out what those laws are. We never do, definitively, we simply get more and more confident that we have figured them out. When something happens that “violates” these laws, it merely decreases our confidence that we have figured out what those laws are. If enough things happen that violate our known laws of physics, our confidence in our version of the laws of physics will eventually drop below 0.5. At that point, they will be ex-laws of physics.
It is, of course much, much more complicated and nuanced than that in practice.
To keep an eye on the original point here, there are various degrees of confidence that any proposition is true or false. It is more irrational to disbelieve an hypothesis with a high truth value near one than it is to disbelieve an hypothesis with a low truth value just above 0.5. My early example is still probably the best for our purposes. Which is more irrational? Believing that the coin is “heads” while it is still covered (truth value at precisely 0.5) or believing the coin is “heads” after you can see it came up tails (truth value approaching 0)?
**
Do you really want to know what’s wrong with this? First, creating new molecules doesn’t require creating new matter, it just requires re-arranging it – it’s called a chemical reaction and it happens with astonishing regularity. That’s how, for example, grapes get turned into wine. Most, if not all, of the basic building blocks for turning water into wine are readily available, it’s just a matter of re-arranging the oxygen and hydrogen with a bit of carbon from the air. Sugar, for example, is C[sub]12[/sub]H[sub]22[/sub]O[sub]11[/sub]. Ethyl alcohol is C[sub]2[/sub]H[sub]5[/sub]OH. Tannin is C[sub]14[/sub] H[sub]10[/sub]O[sub]9[/sub]. If they wanted to bother, I’m sure any competent chemist could turn water into at least a reasonable facsimile of wine, no violations of the laws of physics required. In fact, physics doesn’t really enter into it. It is not, therefore, and act of “ex nihilo creation.”
Moving on, matter can most certainly be created and destroyed. This, too, happens all the time. For example, it’s how the sun works. Matter and energy are interchangeable. Switching one to the other doesn’t violate any conservation laws.
For that matter, ex nihilo creation may not violate any conservation laws either. It is quite possible that the universe itself is, in fact an ex-nihilo creation or, as it has been enagingly dubbed,
the ultimate free lunch.
Which makes a good demonstration as to why it’s probably a really good idea for Poly not to name names, when you stop and think about it. Especially when you stop and consider that that was an essentially good-natured decent person whose immediate mental leap was “It’s the Antichrist!” That was one of the good ones. Just consider what some of the bad ones will do with that kind of leap.
Just a side note for Matt: No, no event that is probability 0 will ever happen. No event that is probability 1 will ever not happen. That’s what 0 and 1 mean.
However, there’s darn near no event in real life that is probability 0 or 1. To use one of Carl Sagan’s analogies, it is possible that my molecules will spontaneously disassociate, slide under a door, and reassociate on the other side. The probability is .0…2, but there is the terminating two. And if I roll a six sided die, the odds that I will get a number between one and six, or edge, provided the die is not lost, is .999…8. But it’s not completely impossible.
You’ll never see it happen before the universe ends ten times.
Bippy said, "
God, (from Kalhoun)"… sure as hell ain’t likely."
Love it…
I’m sure Bippy knows the use of God and hell are in no way strictly reserved for believers anymore! 
Truthseeker said, "
quote:
Originally posted by xenophon41
And note, once again, that Poly’s conclusion is not that he’s identified the returned corporeal Christ, it’s that he’s identified a person he thinks would fit the bill.
I keep seeing this distinction being drawn and, frankly, I just don’t get it. Is god holding auditions? Does this guy get promoted to Jesus of a position opens up? It seems to me that in the christian world view, someone is Jesus or not.
quote:
If I believe this, can I shrink from the thought that he may, in the next moment, walk up to me and grasp my hand with real fingers? I hope I would not deny him.
Maybe you should.
quote:
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24:45).
Even hardened sceptics will agree that this particular prophecy has come true in spades.
Anyway, though, as I’ve said, I’m hardly an expert on interpreting the new testament, my understanding is that christians won’t have any need to recognize the second coming. As long as they’ve recognized the first coming, they’re good to go.
The problem with your position, xeno , is that you either believe it’s going to go down like it says in the book or you don’t. If you believe that it’s going to go down like it says in the book, then Jesus is not going to come up behind you in Times Square and give you a wedgy.
Hilarious post! And my thoughts exactly. Wouldn’t it be blasphemous to say you found someone that’s as good as Jesus? I mean, we know from THE BIBLE that Jesus won’t be pussyfooting around…when he comes back, we’ll all know it. Even us non-believers. So now we’ve found a new dude to worship? And aren’t the rest of you christians just a little pissed that once again, only Poly and his clan were clued in?
When Jesus V1.0 was around, he wasn’t generally accepted to be the Messiah. Note that both Christ and Messiah are titles not proper names. Something about his life, however, was remarkable enough that it caused some people to become his disciples. Over time his disciples came to believe he was the Christ, the Messiah they were waiting for. This was a heterodox view, given that they were Jewish. So a few years down the road the author of Matthew writes his tome to make the arguement that Jesus fulfilled the role of the Messiah from prophecy, albiet not in the Orthodox way that people expected.
As IzzyR could tell you, the arguement didn’t convince all of the Jews. Nor will it ever.
I think Polycarp’s emphasis on the phrase “fulfill that role” is important. What he seems to be saying is that this new guy if he is able to accomplish what he had as his goal on the now defunct website will have a great effect on the world. Such an impact, in fact, that in the future people will be writing books to demonstrate how he fulfilled the role of the Second Coming of Christ from New Testament prophecy, albiet not in the Orthodox way that people expected.
As Scotticher will probably tell you 40 years hence, the arguement won’t convince everyone.
It may be a crazy idea, but it’s certainly no more looney than the idea that Jesus is gonna appear in a ball of fire in the sky, whisk away the believers and lay waste to the rest of us. I’d go so far as to say it’s more rational. (Assuming that I’ve interpreted Poly correctly.)
With more than 3800 posts, it’s time to learn to use the [ quote ] tag, Kalhoun.
Wasn’t my post clear, Homebrew?
Oh, come now Homebrew, obviously you’ve got Poly all wrong. He (and of course all of us who’ve failed to deride his hunch) has just found a convenient new dude who’s as good as Jesus to worship, even though he’s appeared in a manner contrary to what Kalhoun gathers (from those who’ve actually read it) the bible clearly says. Speaking for the rest of the clan, we’re ready to establish a Church sight unseen, based on the bold declaration of our new Deity (who’s Name shall live forever just as soon as we figure it out) from his press agent, Poly.
Was it not prophesied that “My church shall be built upon many fishes”?
[/sarcasm]