So, just what was Jesus' message?

Great Debates
202
  1. SkipMagic, you and I have nothing but anecdotal evidence to convince me of everything that happened before the day Harry Truman was re-elected, and the vast majority of events since. That that anecdotal evidence is borne out by the mutual support of reliable reporters and appears to conform to the condition of the known universe (e.g., if I went to the Battery area, I would not find the Twin Towers still standing there) is material tending to support an acceptance of that anecdotal evidence as “factual.”

I’ve offered to submit my experiential relationship and the events consequent from it to analysis. Has living with your invisible pink koala made your life more meaningful, caused you to enter into a relationship that changed your life in a way you would have not found pleasing at the time you entered into it but in retrospect has made it seem infinitely richer and more fulfilled to you yourself, and given you new insights into life that you had not had before? Has he called you to live a life of moral rectitude and to defend the rights of others to make their own choices?

Oh, and has he adequately defended himself from partisans of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, who would consider him a heretical belief? :wink:

  1. I used Churchill, FDR, and MLK because they were persons as is God. The value of a metaphor is in what it illustrates by way of parallel, not in what it fails to parallel. Quarks have no independent physical existence, so far as I can tell, and have never been observed in isolation. Am I therefore obliged to be an aquarkist (by parallel to atheist)?

Well, Thomas Aquinas and several others would disagree with your last clause – God is the Author of natural law and always abides by it (although He may insert unexpected singularities into it from time to time).

But other than that, I agree with you. I’m not asking anyone to buy a pig in a poke; I’m asking them to dispassionately evaluate the evidence in the frame of reference that it’s offered in, with the ludicrous and unessential thrown out and the things that seem supportable accepted. (I.e., the “liquefying tears of St. Januarius” is as foolish an idea to me as it is to you; the proposition that a deity not measurable by physical means can be shown to be supportable by evidence of varying degrees of reliability, is one that I accept and you do not.) I push the “frames of reference” idea because such arguments automatically assume certain properties that such a “god” ought to have that do not prove to be the case – which is akin to the little kid saying “Why can’t I see oxygen? Or a radio wave?”

  1. Very good. “Faith is not logical.” Okay. It is also not logical for me to patiently debate with you, when I could simply dismiss your arguments as those of a raving idiot, saving me great time and trouble. But from my POV, you are entitled to as much respect and caring as I myself, simply from being another human being (and my God has commanded me to do so), and my prudential concern for what the moderators might have to say if I were to allege you to be a raving idiot is also a contributing factor. Are there people whom you love? Are you prepared to defend the logicalness of loving them? Or of their loving you?

  2. The “rational comparison” between a moderator and a god was not intended to be anything other than a demonstration, to Czarcasm (and anyone else who found it useful), that bizarre and inane things said about a person need not be the accurate valuation of who that person really is, whether it be God or Czarcasm, as evidenced by (a) the strange things claimed of God in the OT and (b) the strange things claimed of moderators in the typical “Evil Nazi Moderator” Pit thread.

That was the sole parallel I was drawing – that each could be maligned by untruths that did not therefore show the underlying good of the person in question. Your other comments I reserve response to in order to handle them in conjunction with Czarcasm’s.
Czarcasm:

No, insofar as I am concerned, God loves you unconditionally. Enough so that He will take whatever you are willing to give Him, whenever you are willing to give it to Him, perpetually open to it. And allows Hell only to give you a true choice – if you insist on turning away from Him after knowing all there is to know about being with Him, not what half-baked arguments I or Lib or FriendOfGod or Joe Cool can give you for putting your trust in Him, He’ll regretfully accept your choice. But He’s gonna keep trying as long as you can hear Him before He finally gives up on you.

203

With all due respect, I’m not sure whether you understand the nature of the problem with anecdotal evidence. An anecdote is nothing more than a description of an event. It might be a true story, and it might not. In either case, an event, real or imaginary, must be extrapolated into an implication under the same rules of procedure as any other assertion.

The problem arises when we use it to imply something that does not follow. For example, if you were to witness a murder, certain implications present themselves analytically: a murder occured; a murderer exists; someone is dead; and so forth. But other implications, depending on the extent of your familiarity with the event, cannot be drawn merely from what you’ve witnessed, because you don’t know any of the broader context (i.e., a context of objectivity). You don’t know, for example, unless you examined the body, whether the murder was staged. You don’t know, unless you were privvy to preceding events, whether the killing was self defense; perhaps the victim was even pointing a gun you didn’t see. The kinds of things you don’t know are things you didn’t witness.

Anecdotes may be used as evidence that an event occured. Not proof, but evidence all the same. They simply may not be used to imply other events, but only facts that relate to the event witnessed.

I’ve had sufficient practice, thanks. I view this as the real thing.

I’m going to stop and think carefully before I say this, because I’ve already said it a number of times, but either my expository or your comprehension is sadly deficient, or perhaps I’ve said it in such a way that it appeared to be tangential to some other point, and therefore escaped notice. I’ll try to remedy that:

I am not asking you to accept my claim that I’ve been in the presence of God; I’m asking you to respect me.

What I’m trying to tell you is that whether you accept my claim is up to you. I never accepted such claims from people for many, many years. I don’t begrudge your doubts.

[…incredulous stare…]

You’re more demanding than I thought. You want me to provide you an example of something that has not yet been discovered. The rumors that I’m clairvoyant are false.

I offer the assertion axiomatically. And unless you can show that nothing remains to be discovered, I think it is a point on which two reasonable men like us can agree.

I can give you examples from prior t coordinates if that will help you. For example, in 1802 there was no known evidence that quarks existed. Prior to 1995, there was no known evidence that a planet orbits 51 Pegasi. And so on.

As evidence that I didn’t mean to include you in the one or two people inclined to such rudeness, consider that I am replying to your posts. I have no problem with disagreement over my beliefs. As I’ve said, believe what you want.

The rudeness occurs when invective, cruel, or intentionally misrepresentative remarks are hurled at the very object of my beliefs. It is sufficient for a man to say, “I do not believe in your God.” A man need not say, “Your God is a murderer.” If they do not believe in my God, then it is remarkably Neanderthal that they would invoke the words of His prophets to condemn Him. It is like the difference between saying, “I don’t know your mother,” and saying, “Your mother is a whore, if rumors are to be believed.”

It is the “alright” wherein you abandon logic. There is no logical reason why you ought to enjoy pleasure. Many people enjoy pain.

Not necessarily. Your battery might be dead. You might not be able to connect. Your ISP might be down. The Straight Dope server might be down. You might type the wrong address. And even though everything go perfectly, the person you’re showing the page to might decide that you’re lying, and merely reading cache from your hard drive. He might decide that you invented and built the site yourself out of whole cloth for no purpose other than making him the victim of a ruse. In other words, he might simply distrust you so much that nothing you say or do can convince him that Straight Dope exists. As it so happens, however, the nature of the thing is such that once you have gone, Mr. Smith, whom he has never met, walks up, says a few words, and convinces him instantly of what you could not.

Same same with God.

Then, out with the old and in with the new! “And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.” — Jesus

204

But there are members of the SDMB who have actually met me. You have made the incredible claim that you have actually met God-are these two experiences similar? The people that met me firsthand can tell you where and when we met, what I look like, what I said, and even what I ate. Was your meeting with God a physical “meeting” or is this a euphamism for a feeling you had at one time?

205

CS Lewis wrote “That which is self contradictory cannot exist”.
“Anyone who dies without worshiping Jesus goes to eternal torture, and Jesus gives you another chance after you have died”
is self contradictory.
Millions of Xians, for two thousand years, many of whom were just as convinced as Libertarian, Polycarp and Triskadecamus (can’t you guys come up with some names with fewer letters?) that they have directly experienced Jesus believe that the first phrase is true, and the second is dangerous heresy. Both phrases can’t be true in the same universe. So: is the Jesus that L, P, and T experience the same Jesus that the other believers have experienced?
If so, how do you account for the contradiction?
If not, who are the other ones?

206

Please call me Lib. Most people do. Also, Tris and Poly will suffice. :slight_smile:

The term “death” is amphibolous. There is a death of the body and a death of the spirit, just as there is a birth of the body and a birth of the spirit. (Please see the exchange I posted earlier between Jesus and Nicodemus.) Death, as you most likely use the term exclusively, equates to what we would call the end of the moral play. You get a curtain call.

207

And by the way, I think Ayn Rand wrote roughly what you quoted. But I believe she stated it as “Contradictions do not exist.” It was her second or third axiom, as I recall, after “Existence exists” and possibly “A is A”.

208

Czar, Skip,

No, it wouldn’t be logical.

Yes, it would be foolish.

No, that does not mean it isn’t true.

Lib,

But we do wish that they had faith. And we must, for the Lord wants us to do what will bring them to Him.

Mapache,

I cannot tell you why people believe what they believe. I cannot tell you why your spirit remains isolated, after your trial. I don’t have your answers. I am sorry. I will not think less of you, because you are not a Christian. I will not offer you condescending comfort that you don’t want. I cannot fail to be willing to share with you the spirit I have received, if you want to share it.

I assure you, even if it is illogical and just plain foolish, I believe that I am required to wait my lifetime in willing readiness to share it with you, but not to force it upon you.

Tris

209

Thanks, Tris. You’re certainly right.

210

Do you also wish that those who have faith in something else didn’t? Who is more lost, those who believe in Zeus or those who don’t believe at all?

211

Czar,

Well, I believe that we are all lost enough that comparisons are pointless. Multiple omnipotence seems logically confused to me, but then, I am not omniscient. I have enough confidence in the love of my Lord, that I will leave the matter of the nine billion names of God to Him to resolve. If someone receives the least of His children with love, and kindness, then He has promised to receive that person the same way. Those who pronounce judgments upon the hearts of others, are asking to be judged, and I would rather accept mercy, than seek judgment.

I am not commanded to go forth and wield the rod of righteousness to drive the heathens to salvation. I am commanded to go forth and love every soul that lives, and boldly bear witness to the Love of God, and the promise of Jesus Christ. So, yes, I want you to come to know that love, and each and every other soul I meet. But condemning you, wishing you into torment, despising you for what I think you believe, or denying that you are as much beloved of the Lord as I, would be a grave sin, in fact, in my opinion, the gravest of all possible sins.

My opinions, and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee, in a cheap restaurant. Not much of tip, either.

Tris

212

Tris is, as always, right on.

It’d depend on what he understood Zeus to be saying to him, Czarcasm – if it’s “smite the heathen” and “commit genocide on the Trojans and their allies,” I suspect you’d feel the same as we do about it. And likewise with the evangelicals and their special agendas, like forcing the Ten Commandments down everyone’s throat like a salvationist placebo, or legislating what’s “moral” and what’s not.

Entirely possible we’re as wrong as you apparently think us to be in thinking we’re doing God’s will in opposing hatred, intolerance, and all that sort of stuff, and in encouraging people to enter into what we think will make them feel self-affirmed and ready to do good towards their fellow man. But, bottom line, do you think the results of what we have to say are all that bad?

213

Polycarp:

>>Oh, and has he adequately defended himself from partisans of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, who would consider him a heretical belief?<<

Why do you think he’s hiding under my bed? And it’s for this same reason he mutated into a see-through, magenta koala. You know, to differentiate. :slight_smile:

>>Quarks have no independent physical existence, so far as I can tell, and have never been observed in isolation.<<

The difference between quarks and gods is that quarks are part of a scientific theory whose behavior (the quarks, not the theory) has been accurately measured and calculated through many valid scientific tests and observations. Gods, on the other hand, have not been as generous with proof.

>>The value of a metaphor is in what it illustrates by way of parallel, not in what it fails to parallel.<<

Unfortunately, the weaknesses of metaphors largely outweigh what might be considered valuable. Glaring inaccuracies are the downfall of most analogies and metaphors; which is why analogies and metaphors may prove groovy for understanding ambiguous or difficult concepts, but they are near worthless for standards of proof.

>>God is the Author of natural law and always abides by it (although He may insert unexpected singularities into it from time to time).<<

The gods that are described through existing texts, conversations, etc… violate natural law. The Judeo/Christian god fits into this same pattern: creating morning and evening before the sun (Genesis 1:15 - 16) and moon; creating Eve from Adam’s rib (Genesis 2:21 -22); etc… Christ is also described as violating natural law by turning water into wine, ressurecting the dead (including himself), healing the blind, curing lepers, mutliplying fish and loaves–all this by supernatural, paranormal powers. Powers that don’t fall under natural law. (I would cite, but I think we’re all familiar with the book and stories. And, of course, I’m lazy.)

>>Are you prepared to defend the logicalness of loving them? Or of their loving you?<<

Loving me? You mean some people don’t? I’ll be damned. :slight_smile: But, yes, I’m prepared to say that the feelings people say are love fall under the heading of emotions; and I’m prepared to say that emotions are biochemical in origin, as is evidenced by the poking and prodding of the brain’s pink lobes by valid scientific tests and experiments.

>>if I were to allege you to be a raving idiot<<

I’ll save you the worry. :slight_smile: Of course I am; I’ve increased my three year-old post count of 4 by a ten-fold in the past few days so that I can argue with faceless, nameless (real names, that is) people–none of whom I’ve ever met and none of whom have ever physically affected me. I’m nuts. However, I keep good company. :wink:

>> “Why can’t I see oxygen? Or a radio wave?”<<

Once again, the difference between deities and your examples here is that we can prove the existence of the latter(s) through valid scientific processes.

Libertarian:

>>I’m not sure whether you understand the nature of the problem with anecdotal evidence<<

I’ll ease your mind then: I understand anecdotal evidence very well. This is why I can say that anecdotal and testimonial evidence are not considered proof; they may help to understand viewpoints, but they are not proof of assertions. One of the biggest reasons is because they tend to fall prey to confirmation bias.

>>I am not asking you to accept my claim that I’ve been in the presence of God; I’m asking you to respect me.<<

I’m not disrespecting you so that I’d need to remedy the matter. Questioning and remaining skeptical (or disbelieving entirely) are not examples of disrespect.

>> For example, in 1802 there was no known evidence that quarks existed. Prior to 1995, there was no known evidence that a planet orbits 51 Pegasi. And so on.<<

No, but no one made outrageous, metaphysical claims about quarks or real planets yet to be discovered. Supernatural, natural law-breaking powers were not attributed to quarks, leptons or planets. These examples you listed were discovered through valid, scientific means.

>>A man need not say, “Your God is a murderer.” If they do not believe in my God, then it is remarkably Neanderthal that they would invoke the words of His prophets to condemn Him.<<

Frame of reference problem here. You’d be incorrect to call me a neanderthal for saying “Zeus was a rapist.” Because according to the myth of Europa, Zeus did indeed rape her. I need not believe in Zeus to say that his character was a rapist.

Same goes with your god. Whether you believe it a good thing or not, your god–in what I consider to be Judeo-Christian mythology–drowned the entire world, killing thousands, if not millions, of people. That’s the ultimate in genocide; he murdered all those people. You may think he was justified, but that doesn’t take away from the literary fact that he killed.

I’m not pissed off about it, because there’s just no proof that a tsunami the size of my aunt Zelda’s ass wiped out nearly everyone on Earth. But, once again, I’m not (or anyone else)neolithic for bringing it up in the context of the current debate.

>>There is no logical reason why you ought to enjoy pleasure.<<

Sure. Evolution and natural selection. It’d be difficult for a species to copulate and procreate if the action wasn’t pleasurable.

>>Same same with God.<<

I know you’re ignoring him, but Czarcasm had valid and poignant questions, so I’ll quote him in response to your “Same same with God.”

But there are members of the SDMB who have actually met me. You have made the incredible claim that you have actually met God-are these two experiences similar? The people that met me firsthand can tell you where and when we met, what I look like, what I said, and even what I ate. Was your meeting with God a physical “meeting” or is this a euphamism for a feeling you had at one time?

>>Then, out with the old and in with the new! “And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins.” — Jesus<<

You profess that there are no rules for salvation, yet you quote the one guy who’d very much disagree with you according to the Bible. He had rules for getting into Heaven–which was the whole point. 'Cause if everyone was allowed in willy-nilly, then he wouldn’t have needed to visit

214

No, because one Person does, you won’t be!! :wink:

You miss the point, I think. Rules are to the side – it’s trusting Him and trying, out of love, to live up to His expectations, that counts. “We don’t need no steenkin’ rules!” :slight_smile:

I note that SkipMagic feels that Czarcasm’s questions are not being answered. Czar, because I dislike it when it appears somebody is evading my questions, I’d appreciate a brief restatement of what you think I (or we) have failed to address. Or if you prefer to restate them, Skip.
I’d like to treat you both, as regards this, with the sort of respect I have come to expect from you.

215

So I could not believe in Christ’s divinity (or even existence), disavow spiritual and less metaphysical allegience to him and still ride a camel’s hump into Paradise?

The reason I doubt is because according to the two most prevalent versions of the Bible (King James and Douay-Rheims), the writers claimed Jesus made mention of more rules than your responses have suggested. I’m not so sure the rules have been set aside quite as easily as you have alluded.

216

"And they shall say, “We did not know You.”

He doesn’t say you get immortality because you prayed according to the right formula. He says it is how you treat those He has sent to you, in this life. He won’t know those who prayed to Him, and spurned the needy, however much they cry out that they knew Him. The time will come, and you will choose. If you want His love, it is yours to take, and that will take you beyond the limits of this life. You don’t have to love Him. He loves you, no matter what you have done.

Tris

217

Yes, but (and this bares repeating) could I not believe in Christ’s divinity (or even existence), disavow spiritual and less metaphysical allegience to him and still ride a camel’s hump into Paradise?

218

Wow,

Yes.

Why do you think you will need a camel in Heven?

Tris

219

Not the camel. Just the hump. :slight_smile: Sheesh, who’d want to bring a camel with 'em? They smell. Anyway, more later. Food first. Food = Love.

220

Really quick as I prepare a burnt offering unto my stomach, how do you reconcile your claim that one need not believe in Jesus to get his heavenly passport signed with what the Bible clearly states in John 11:25-26:

“Jesus said to her, ‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?’”

Okay. Now the food.

221

Yes.

I don’t see anything there that excludes you, or your camel, for that matter.

Jesus speaks often to the faithful, and seldom directly addresses those who do not believe in Him. He speaks of being the Way. His life is His message. The sinners are His children. Believing in Him means having faith, and loving Him is the important part. He explains in several places that loving others is loving Him.

He does often describe those who use the cloak of religious authority to justify themselves, or condemn others. He doesn’t tell anyone “You must worship me, or I will send you to Hell.” He often says that He cares for those who are lost to Him. He speaks harshly to, and about those who lead others into sin in His name.

The Samaritan, the Roman Soldier, many who came to Him were not believers in the sense of church membership, yet He uses them as examples of righteous living. If the Lord doesn’t mind you not being a Jew, why should I mind if you aren’t a Christian?

Tris