Polycarp, I was refering to Libertarian, who made the amazing claim that he personally met God, then tried to equate it to my meeting my mother. I am trying to find out the circumstances of this incredible meeting, because even in the Bible God didn’t personally meet with people too often. When it comes to the statement “Incredible claims call for incredible proof” I’d say his claim qualified as pretty incredible, providing of course that this wasn’t just another “What I really meant was…” situation.
Okay kids, I’m gonna jump in here and play for a while:
Tris,
I see nothing that includes anyone in that passage other than believers. Had the writers wanted Christ to say that anyone could get into heaven if they performed good works and called Mom on Sundays, regardless of a belief in Christ, then I doubt they would have had problems expressing such.
And, if you look further in Matthew 5:17-20 you’ll find:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. {18} For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. {19} Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. {20} For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Or Luke 14:26, which reads:
“If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”
Once again, I think the membership list for this party was a bit stricter than what you’ve proposed.
And, no matter how long we debate about the suggested theology surrounding your religion, it will always come back to whether you can prove (or offer up valid proof) the existence of your chosen god; Jesus, as written in the Bible, said some nice things, but nothing he said was either original or greatly profound. As others have mentioned in this thread, he wasn’t the first Christ in that area to exist–just the most successful judging by latter years.
Virgin births, prophets proclaiming the way, resurrection (especially in 3 days), various miracles, fortellings of doom and peace–all had been carried out and described in other religions before Jesus showed up on the playground.
And if 2000 + years isn’t enough time for the other shoe to drop, or for proof to rear its lovely head (especially since the God we’re talking about is theoretically omniscient and omnipotent) then the lack of evidence points to the idea that, if Jesus ever existed, he hung a “Just stepped out, kids…be right back!” sign on his cross and never came back.
I have never tried to prove the existence of God, or Jesus to anyone. Not here, not in my walking around life.
The Gospels are not logic texts, or science books, or even a rule book for getting into heaven. The Bible is a book about some people who came to know God. If you look in it for reasons to believe that God does not meet your expectations, that will probably work. It can also be a very useful tool for coming to know Him.
I don’t worry about the copyright on the message that of all things in Earth, Love is the greatest.
I am not trying to convince anyone that they should believe what I believe, only trying to share what has been give to me. If you are so very sure that there is no God, then you might consider this:
If you live your whole life in order that you are a source of love for all the people you meet, and do so without expectation of any benefit in return but that love might exist, it would be a good thing, no matter whose idea it was.
Tris
But evidence and proof are two different things. No piece of evidence on its own constitutes proof. You build a proof on the basis of the sum of the evidence.
Yes, I know this, as I’ve said repeatedly now.
People had speculated about such things for a long, long time. And not all discoveries are scientific in nature, such as the discovery of cubism.
I don’t know whether you missed the point, so I’ll state it a third time: not everything has yet been discovered. I think that, if you will check your categorical skepticism for a moment, you will agree with me.
They were already dead.
You’re tap dancing. If you are indeed an emotionless person who views every aspect of his life through the lens of logic, then you’re the first one I’ve encountered.
They were spiritual meetings that I have described on these boards many times, and Czar has seen them.
You seem to think that, somehow, you may desire one thing and walk into another. Such is not the case. You find what you look for. If you’re looking for goodness, holiness, and love, you’ll find God. It isn’t a matter of rules, but of fulfillment.
What if you are looking for a god that respects you as a person, and realizes that you are genuinely confused but want goodness, holiness, and love?
Oh, wait, if you were really looking for goodness you wouldn’t be confused. You would find god. So anyone who doesn’t find god really doesn’t want goodness, holiness, or love. This is a pointless argument, because whatever anyone says you can always say they aren’t really looking for god. Of course, the people who have “found” god tend to have very different ideas about him. So am I right to assume that anyone who has different opinions than you about god is really lying, and in fact is not even looking for god? So not only are you the only person in history to find god, you are also the only person to even look for him? Or perhaps you are saying that whatever you want god to be, he becomes for you? Then I will look for a god who will accept all his children into his arms, even those obstinate logical ones. Even the confused ones. Even those who are bombarded with so many theories and beliefs they don’t know what to do. I sincerely hope you are right, and I do find what I am looking for.
Lib didn’t say ‘will find God Immediately’.
If I understand correctly, Lib, your meeting with your god was “spiritual”. Or, in other words, a feeling came over you that you have attributed to your god. This in no way is equal to people meeting me in person physically. You may equate the two in importance, but they do not mean the same thing. As to whether or not this has been made clear to me before-you have a slight tendency to make unclear statements and later show utter astonishment when people ask you to clarify. Example: When the story, as told in the Bible, of the flood killing the population of most of the Earth is related to you as an example of your gods’ cruelty, you respond with “They were already dead.” Do you mean that they all droped dead right before the water reached their lungs? If you are trying to say that the entire population except for one family, including the entire animal kingdom, were “spiritually” dead, why didn’t you spend an extra 3 seconds and add that word to the sentence? We would still have something to debate about, but at least we’d have a slight idea as to what we were debating in the first place?
“Met God” is not the semantical equivalent of “Felt His presence spiritually” to the general population, and “They were already dead” does not mean the same thing as “They were already spiritually dead.”
If that is indeed what you meant, which at this point is still unclear.
Then that is what you will find.
We all do. God go with you.
<Checking in to see if the number of angels dancing on the head of the pin has been determined yet. Answer is “no,” and never will be. Concludes that entire endeavour is a monumental waste of time and energy. Figures that if he goes out and does a good deed he’s contributed more than the debators. Vows never to open the thread again.>
Bye
I don’t know why I never opened this thread before tonight; it seems right up my alley. So now I’ve slogged through the whole thing, and this is my impression: three (sometimes four) people (Lib, Poly, and Tris, in alphabetical order, and sometimes Mange) (there are others, but these are the main players) are basically saying: we’re mad at Czar because Czar doesn’t acknowledge our invisible friend, and thinks it’s kind of funny that we do.
I think it’s kind of funny too.
As for the OP: I suspect that Jesus’ message (insofar as we have any evidence of his existence or speeches) was this: Be nice to each other, because the power structures that control us all–church, state, advertisers, etc.–are damn sure not going to be.
You know, there are things about this thread that raise their ugly heads whenever this sort of discussion goes on.
Given: Say I have never met Czarcasm’s wife in the flesh but have some sort of remote sensing device that allows me to monitor his activities, know David B. (his brother-in-law) personally, and have extensive contacts among his acquaintances.
Required: to prove Czarcasm loves his wife, using the methods of proof available here.
Well, I have his raw allegation that yes, he does love his wife. This is purely anecdotal and subjective, but it furnishes me with a starting point. I must therefore examine objective evidence to sustain or refute his claim that he does indeed love his wife.
By questioning of David B. and other mutual acquaintances, I find that he has acted in a manner consonant with a loving husband, that only rarely have there been instances where he was guilty of an unloving act (as there will be with effectively all human beings), and that his behavior seems to indicate that his claim is true.
It therefore becomes incumbent on me to presume, subject to later disproof, that Czarcasm does indeed love his wife. No item of absolute proof has been advanced, but the circumstancial evidence including his own averring total to a set of data that supplies me with adequate certitude for a reasonable conclusion that what he says is true.
This is precisely the proof which Jesus told his apostles to provide in circumstances of this sort.
Whether Lib or Tris or I have actually had divine apparitions in our lives is immaterial. Whether any given anecdote in the Bible has any objective truth value, as opposed to being a morally edifying fable, is immaterial.
Are we behaving in a way consonant with the instructions we claim to have received from someone we claim as our Lord?
Finally, let me offer as a metaphor for the misperception that SkipMagic seems to have on my assertions about what Jesus commanded.
There are boards on the Internet which have inordinately detailed rules about who may post what in what language when and under what terms and manner. While there is some legally protective language in the posting standards here, complying with that language is not sufficient to maintain one’s status as a good poster.
Our rule is “Don’t be a jerk.” This is purely subjective and interpretable by the Moderators and Administrators, and violation of it results in banning. It is not enough to say that a hypothetical post accusing Scylla, on no valid grounds, of necrophiliac pedophilia in the Pit, due to his political stance and the poster’s conviction that all people with such political standards are indeed necrophiliac pedophiles, complied with the language standards of the board – it violated some clear-cut assumptions on what behavior is acceptable among us.
That’s what Jesus is saying: Not only “don’t be a Jerk” but “be an anti-Jerk.”
Further, if I were to make some absurd flame in the heat of anger and a short time later apologize and retract it, I would be held to a different standard than a newbie, because (1) I should know better but (2) I have established a reputation among the administration and regular members here as a level-headed person who feels strongly about some issues. So my judgment by them would be at once more stringent and more lenient than someone whose first post is a categorical flame.
In short, Jesus is not looking for people who can jump through the proper theological hoops in order to avoid Hell. He’s looking for anti-Jerks who are willing to commit to his plan of action, and then giving them instructions on how to carry it out. I dunno about you, but I see a vast difference in those two pictures.
But, Poly, I don’t think any atheists here have doubted the existence of your love for God…they lack belief in the existence of God. You can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you love X, but all that proves is that you love X and you presumably believe X exists…which we already knew.
A Neanderthal comprehension of the facts. Czar acknowledges “our invisible friend” sufficiently to insult and ridicule Him, and then recedes into his shell of pretension about meaning no harm. I presume, however, that you will take this post to mean that ice cream has no bones.
Although I don’t share Lib’s aversion to Czar’s POV, I do feel that it’s dishonest debate to switch back and forth between a (1) if the Bible is God’s Word, then He’s guilty of the following 338 crimes against humanity {enumeration follows, with appropriate invective} and (2) we have no evidence beyond your word and a bunch of legends made up by some idiots 2,000 years ago that God actually exists.
We didn’t say the Bible was literally true or that all parts of it represented God’s word; that was those other idiots! {points in LB-ward direction} 
My post is intended to suggest that there might be some grounds for accepting as a reasonable tentative conclusion that there just might be somebody behind the curtain if the guys in front of it say that there is and behave in accordance with the instructions they say the guy behind it gave them. Not as a definitive proof, mind you, but in the same manner as it’s reasonable to presume that Czarcasm loves his wife, even though he cannot prove that to us.
The “invisible friend” thing presumes that you have God-over-there and world-over-here as two discrete entities having nothing to do with each other. The presumption of God’s role as Creator and His immanence in His Creation suggests that rather it’s that you cannot show me “air” – because we’re both immersed in it and its characteristics are to be transparent. But (as someone who’s lived through a couple of hurricanes) I can testify to air’s ability to affect one’s life. And I can do the same with God.
You think that song is beautiful? I deny the existence of your invisible opinion (which I think is a horrible opinion) because I don’t share it and you can’t show it to me (your opinion is wrong).
No, it is NOT in the same manner. You are taking evidence of love and conflating it with evidence of existence. The evidence that Czarc loves his wife is exactly that and only that; it is not convincing evidence she exists. You are not claiming that Czarc’s love is evidence his wife exists, but you are claiming that your love of God is evidence that He exists. So I don’t think it is “in the same manner”.
Concepts can affect us. The concept of art affects me. But it seems a helluva leap to go around claiming some sort of “Art” existed before all material entities’ conscious thought and is a sentient being that loves us. You want to say “the concept of God exists, and it affects me,” and I won’t quibble a bit. 
Just because a thought or imagination or concept can affect us, doesn’t mean it exists anywhere besdies in our own head.
I don’t deny the existence of your opinion [love]. I think that claiming that your opinion [love] is proof that the song exists is a bit too far, though.
And, just to address an issue I have not been involved in, but which I still feel I have something to say on the issue.
Regarding impolite comments made about persons/entities much beloved by others:
Now, most people agree that it is impolite to insult another person’s mother, and we generally avoid doing so. However, let’s say the mother is a public figure–say, a president–who makes decisions that have immediate and profound impact on everyone’s lives, decisions which some believe have resulted in death and torture for untold millions, and has refused to interfere in other situations and thus appeared to some to allow further starvation, torture and misery to proceed unimpeded. Suppose some of the supporters of said president are at times virulently opposed to anything that goes agains their party’s platform, even to the point of murder or picketing funeral of non-supporters who have died. Now, let’s say we’re on a public message board where we discuss politics and the state of the world. If the president’s daughter wanders in and is appalled at those who call her mother a murderer, what would be a proper response? “I am sorry, I will moderate my tone, or find another message board where you do not read it.” Well… some might say that. I suspect more might say, “Hey, your mom makes decisions that affect all of us, and I think she’s done some terrible things. I think I have the right to call her a murderer if I think she’s murdered.” And there’s another wrinkle…70-80% of the people on the message board–heck, in most message boards and most public forums-- claim to love the president like a child. Even the most obscure and tiny public forum will likely have at least one person who loves the president dearly. And anyway, it is those who love the president who you need to convince of her terrible ways, so just gathering with other non-supporters doesn’t do much good. Oh dear. Can the people who do not follow the president ever forcibly speak their mind in public about this powerful public figure without being labelled terribly gauche and rude?
Should I go get Chaim or Zev and get them to post the List of Things That Existed Before Creation?
Naah. I’m saying that, like Czarmom on the telephone, the truth value of the idea that I claim I’m communicating with somebody you do not directly perceive can be borne out, at least in a probabilistic way, by whether I appear to be behaving in a manner such that it’s reasonable to assume that I’m doing what I claim to do. (Which is, in essence, what “By this shall all men know that you are My disciples, that you love one another” bears out?)
Nemmine’ whether “my invisible friend” Mr. Snuffalufagus can be proven to exist – am I, the person you perceive, acting like, according to me and an external source, he told me to behave? If so, that’s evidence (not proof) in favor of his existence as the thing impelling me to behave that way.
Having caught up on my reading of this now-huge thread, I have a few things to add…
In response to Skip Magic/Lib (and others):
This kind of method of talking about God is like using apples to talk about oranges. Right now, there is a significant portion of particle physicists who believe that the Higgs Boson exists, the particle which confers mass to other particles. They go about trying to prove their belief through experiments, but so far they haven’t been successful. This doesn’t mean that they won’t ever be, but they’re not now. Despite this, the standard model of physics is based on the presumption that these particles do exist. Is that irrational? Unscientific? Maybe to some, but that’s the way science is done. Experiments are conducted only after a paradigm has been established.
Religion is a paradigm that has long been established, but is not agreeable to experimentation because of its immaterial nature. Trying to apply the ideas of science to religion is not fruitful, IMO, because it won’t produce results of any kind. A lack of result is not a null result - it does not disprove the paradigm. The only method I can use to prove the existence of God to myself is spiritual feeling. I personally have felt God, but only on an occasional and inconsistent basis, so I don’t think it constitutes evidence for me. I don’t think it’s possible to prove the existence of God to others, as much as you might wish for them to believe. That hasn’t been attempted really in this thread, but it has been demanded.