jmullaney:
Really? Does that mean that he predicted it would be destroyed? After all, when he died, it was still standing. He died in the year 33, and the Temple wasn’t destroyed until 70 CE.
Also, how then do Christians interpret Isaiah 56:6-7
Do they interpret this as referring to a different house or mountain? Do they consider this prophecy already fulfilled? Do they consider it no longer valid?
Is this part of the plot of the “Left Behind” series? 
Chaim Mattis Keller
Just because something is subjective, doesn’t mean it can’t be proven. I can’t prove that if you rub your eyes hard, you’ll see colored spots – only you can prove this to yourself. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true, merely because you refuse to rub your eyes.
Offer all the assertions and opinions you like. It’s no skin off my nose. 
Which may be the pot calling the kettle black!
I said, the SDMB is a door (link) to Gaudere. That is a perfectly valid analogy.
I’ll admit if you never went to the SDMB, it wouldn’t be obvious that Gaudere exists. But, you can’t logically or objectively argue about an obvious topic by first asserting that it is unprovable or speculative.
I never made that assertion.
And yes, you are entitled to your opinion.
cmkeller
a) Yes, really.
Thomas 71: Jesus said: I shall destroy this house, and nobody will be able to restore it.
Not much for context, of course – but this is akin to Matthew 24: Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
Who can restore what God has put asunder? :shrug:
b) I don’t know – but whoever wrote this predicted it wouldn’t be rebuilt, which is somewhat more remarkable.
c) Essentially overriden by Jesus in John 4:21-3: “the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. … But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”
d) Could be refering to heaven, or the New Jerusalem. :shrug:
e) no
f) no
g) I hope not! :eek:
Jmull,
Here is a strict definition of false analogy, with only two examples, yours not being good enough to be the third:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/falsean.htm
By comparison here, you are attempting to validate Jesus as a door to God and validating his existence by using Gaudere and SDMB, because they are known to exist. In this case it is not even a workable point. Gaudere could in fact be a door to SDMB for the sake of argument, which is why you would want to use them both for the analogy (to legitimize Jesus by association). However, the real problem is that by your analogy, anybody at all could likewise be the door to God and can be compared to Gaudere and SDMB. Your analogy doesn’t even pretend that A and B share any property, P. Accordingly, it has nothing to do with Jesus and does not even make the point that a door to God is needed. Hence it is a double-false analogy, coming and going, by being a completely empty statement to begin with. It might work better if you had said: “Gaudere is like God, because Jesus is a hot topic on SDMB.” But this would be made in jest, of course.
Thankyou for re-informing me that I have a right to counter-assert your assertions. It was a trick question, obviously, to see if you were able to understand the connotation and my bewilderment. No further comment.
No, that isn’t the analogy I’m making. Let me present the analogy again.
I said: If you keep Jesus’s teachings, you would see that God exists.
You said: That is a false analogy.
I said: If you go to http://boards.straightdope.com/ you would see that Gaudere exists.
You say:
I am not trying to legitimize by association. I am saying your refusal to do what is required to know God doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, in much the same way as someone who refuses to vist the SDMB doesn’t mean Gaudere doesn’t exist. Ignorance of a truth doesn’t mean it is false.
That is certaintly true. I could claim Gaudere is a moderator at some other site, and then you could click on that site and prove to yourself that that is not in fact the case. It is not terribly difficult.
Brian, I could not agree more with your point about rationality. In fact, that was precisely what I had to say.
I don’t see Jesus as the “door” to God (except in the sense He himself used the term of himself). I don’t see him as the anything-in-particular in the sense of being an interface.
He is, for me and most Christians of any denomination, the means by which God revealed Himself in human form. This is a non-rational call, a matter of metaphysical, symbological interpretation. He is the means by which one knows the love of God – as mediated through the Holy Spirit – in much the same sense. It is not a factual assertion but a point in which one puts one’s trust.
Or not. I don’t demand anyone accept my views as anything but what they are. I do insist that I have the right to hold them, recognizing them as non-rational in genesis, and to act upon them.
It was in this sense and this sense only that I took exception to your “counter-assertion” to jmullaney’s post. You are more than welcome to believe that he was a misguided Palestinian Jew with a goofball religious viewpoint, if you so choose, or whatever you may personally think about him – including the improbable idea that he in fact never existed, something that has been asserted on this board in the past but which strikes me as highly unlikely; generally any heroic figure has some historical referent, however unlike the character of the myth he or she may actually have been.
I would also suggest that “counter-assertions” are not an effective means of arguing. If someone makes a wild-haired assertion with which you disagree, disassemble it and hold up the bleeding pieces for inspection; don’t make the equal but opposite wild-haired assertion. That merely makes you look as abvallative as he (or she).
Jmull and Poly,
Not to beat anything to death or make enemies (for that is counterproductive to knowledge besides stress inducing), but I would point out that A. Counter-asserting is dealing with an assertion in any way other than agreement, and B. that by following Jesus’ teachings to believe in God is not a false analogy at all, it is a logical absurdity, and not because I think so, but because it is completely circular and self-referential (ie, Jesus claims to represent God and it would be a contradiction to believe in his words and not believe in God). For the record, I don’t think anything Jesus ever said sounded god-like.
By the way, Jmull, here is the counter-example: To believe in God does not automatically lead one to believe in Jesus. That is my point. Are you sure you folks have the right guy? (Have you considered that he promises the most for the least work?) There is no logical way to know, is there? A feeling, an instinct? Purely problematic. We might as well follow any ethical person to find God. Oh, but not all them claim to be God’s representive (another joke). Is there any way to prove that God would announce himself, even assuming his little test of faith?
Bottomline: The entire disconnect here is necessarily linking faith with God (no logical connection) and necessarily linking Jesus with God (no logical connection). However, faith in Jesus, well, there is a connection there, because a claim is made. So, to have faith in Jesus assumes both faith and God, but does not prove or legitimize either of them.
Why is it a logical absurdity? You can’t see what is behind you right now without looking into a mirror or turning around. That doesn’t mean what is behind you doesn’t exist, nor is this a horribly cruel unfair world that makes you acutally have to do something in order to see what is behind you.
The Christian God? 
Well, your point doesn’t seem to make any sense. Of course belief in the Christian God leads you automatically into believing in Christ.
He provides an equal reward to each of the repentant, if my gloss on the scriptures is correct.
You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means. 
But there is none good but God.
Try it for forty days. If you aren’t satisfied, you can have your money back.
There’s that word again. If God exists, then of course you can trust him. Just as much as you can trust anyone who exists. What isn’t logical about that?
We are talking about the Christian God, are we not? How can you say this with a straight face?
You could certaintly try trusting what Jesus said was true and following his instructions and maintain an open mind.
OK. Self-referential statements. Jesus vs DesCartes, live on pay-per-view.
Good ol’ Rene said, “I think therefore I am,” perhaps punctuated into english as, “I think; therefore, I am.” This takes the form, A (implies) B, which is what we seem to have here. We don’t, though. If we did, it would simply be thought implies existence. Instead we have my thought implies my existence.
The subject is assumed in the first statement, and so cannot be the object of proof.
As far as what *brian is saying in his flowery but correct way, having faith in God to know God is the same logical error. That is, “I believe God exists; therefore, God exists.” We step it up a notch with the addition of Jesus, but not much.
“Know God by following the teachings of Jesus.” Or, to keep parallel structure… “I follow the teachings of Jesus; therefore, I know God exists.” Nothing seems logically incorrect there. Jesus is the subject, God is the object. HOWEVER, and this is the crucial point, implicit in Jesus’s teachings is the existence of God, his Father. And so, expanding a bit, “I follow the teachings of Jesus which states that we are following God’s will; therefore, God exists.”
Assumes what is to be proved. Logically void of truth.
As far as gaudere goes, one can personally verify that she exists without believing in her existence in the first place. The analogy is incorrect.
There is nothing in keeping Jesus’s general commandments which requires believing God exists. If you want to keep all of them except the “love your God” one in his “summation” that is good enough.
One more time: you can’t prove she exists (as Gaudere, more or less) without coming here. That is the analogy I have formed, like it or not – but please stop distorting it. :wally
This is not a distortion to say they are not the same analogy. The existence or non-existence of God is implicit in the teachings of Jesus. The existence or non-existence of Gaudere is not implicit in the postings of the SDMB.
As far as God not being implicit in Jesus, try reading the passage John 14 you posted on this very page. It is possible that I may twist what you say, and would then stand corrected, but try to keep yourself straight before you call someone else a putz. [sub]not meant to be hostile, of course, but you know how posts have a distinct lack of intonation[/sub]
Poly also said,
Not to say you agree with polycarp explicitely, just to note that it has been noted here twice that Jesus and God go hand in hand.
NOW, it is possible, of course, to believe that Jesus existed as a man with teachings about how to exist among each other. But the basis for morality assumed the existence of a God which enforced this morality, and so, again, God is implicit in the teachings of Jesus. God was the “because.” This, in fact, was brian’s reasoning behind the statement “Jesus has nothing to do with God.” He was just a man who said some stuff. But the use of Jesus’s teachings as a method to aquire a sense of God creates a false connection in that light.
So, either Jesus has nothing to do with God, in which case following him won’t help us find God anyway, or in Jesus God is implied, in which case it is a tautology.
Jmull,
We have no LOGICAL or reason-based necessity to believe that God would require a Jesus or require us to have faith in him or Jesus (nor do we know this from first-hand source, hence the use of reason). If we have faith in Jesus and accept his version of God, this is the circular trap of reason-based absurdities, because anyone could claim to be the messiah at anytime at will. The reason this is absurd is because we are told that God sent Jesus because Jesus said so, and Jesus is God’s son because Jesus said so. Get it? God never said so, only Jesus did.
Furthermore, faith is only a necessity when someone claims to speak for God. God is only the burning issue if you believe someone is speaking for God. Otherwise it is all calm and quiet. God’s will only becomes an issue when someone demands faith and pretends to speak for God. ANYONE can demand it, because God doesn’t limit the number of wackos who can speak for him. Therefore it is moot, because anyone can claim this without God enforcing it. If God doesn’t enforce it, we are left to wonder which wacko is the real McCoy. God never said this was his will, it makes no sense.
Note: If we assume God said his will or fortold this messiah, (that would be the Hebrew God) and this means that Jesus probably not the messiah, because most Jews were unconvinced and didn’t buy his miracles (so I conclude they were made up after the fact). If someone appeared today claiming to be Jesus, wouldn’t you demand a sign or a miracle? If not, then take your pick of wackos, the asylums are full of them. If so, then you can demand it anytime.
I disagree with this statement. EVERY believer in Christ has the opportunity to hear God’s voice on a regular basis. It’s a routine part of living the Christian life. Not a big booming voice out of the sky, but a “still, small” voice, a nudging, a sense of direction from God, an idea … it’s hard to describe but it’s very real.
It was just a coincidence that the post below (excerpted)showed up on the exmormon.org board today. If one insists on claiming that his sheep hear voices, it helps to remember this:
*
Subject: I think I am sick… PLEASE HELP
Date: Feb 26 11:20
Author: Somebody
Mail Address:
…Last friday, I was doing some homework in a psych class and I heard these voices to kill myself. I took it for about 10 minuetes and then I got up and turned some music on. It went away for abit, and then later that evening I got into the tub and thought I saw a big spider. The voices contiuned throughout the weekend. I have had odd thoughts, like when I am in the store to scream, I hear screaming. I could go on but I won’t… I kept a journal of some of the things I was experencing and I wrote my therapist. I talked with her friday about the first incident and she wants me to see the “doctor” I agreed. I also made an appointment with the medical doctor tomorrow, just to rule out anything medical. I am sitting here writing this as I venture out to english class soon. Please help me figure out this.
Thanks, I’ll check back later…
*
FriendofGod, let me ask you a question, and I expect you to answer it honestly:
Did you read the “Could you Believe” thread I directed you to?
Because not every believer in Christ hears the voice you describe. For that matter, you’ve already proven yourself to be quite able to mistake your own imagination for the voice of God, when you uttered false prophecies. How can we believe that this voice is real when the information you claim to get from it is so wrong?
-Ben
Who said anything about existence? You did.
“Captain Hook is to Never-Never-Land as King George is to the 13 colonies”
Is that a false analogy? No. Does that statement somehow imply that Captain Hook and Never-Never-Land actually exist? No. Now go away or I will putz you a second time.
Talk about a false analogy. You keep trying to change the topic from Jesus’s commandments to his teachings in general. You can’t even cite an example of what you are talking about.
:rolleyes:
OK. We have no LOGICAL reason to believe gravity exists either. What’s your point?
I don’t mean to sound patronizing, but in case you learned the scientific method in Kansas, let me give you a quick lesson:
One could say “the reason things fall is because there a big vacuum cleaner 3 feet under ground.” That is called a hypothesis. One could then construct and experiment, involving a shovel. One could then “run the experiment” which would involve digging a 3 foot hole. Then you record what you find. This is called “data.” Then, you see if your data matches the hypothesis, and write down your conclusion as to whether and how close they matched.
Now you are very wise, and you will no doubt wish to point out that many people have dug holes in the ground and found no vacuum cleaner. And you are correct. And that the scientific method has in fact yielded a much better explanation of why objects fall called gravity. This is true also.
Then don’t believe any of that. I don’t believe gravity exists because Newton said so. In fact, everyone agrees Newton was wrong on some of the details. Newton died a poor nut trying to turn lead into gold, which is the kind of thing that casts doubt upon his scientific process.
I believe gravity exists because I ran the test which Newton and his followers said would demonstrate its existence. I dropped a few weights. I swung a few pendulums. I observed and plotted the motions of the planets.
So I can safely say to some nut that comes along and tries to tell me gravity doesn’t exist, that they are wrong and don’t know whereof they speak.
I agree. There are no end to wackos.
Circular reasoning. There is no truth, hence people lie, therefore there is no truth.
Yup.
I believe you when you say God never personally told you this was his will.
But you know what it is like. It is like a man in a jail cell. The door is unlocked, and there is a note from the jailer saying it is unlocked and he can go and if he picks up the phone down the hall the govenor wishes to formally pardon him. He can hear a phone ringing down the hall. But, he waits there in his cell patiently for a call from the governor until he dies. Oh well.
There is a definite lack of workers in the field. Sorry about that.
As for your attempt to digest the scientific method, well, there is irony here. An attempt to validate a belief in Jesus by wavering between two competing definitions/sets of truth-values, one scientific, the other non-scientific, is invalid, and I would even suggest that one of them is false. (In a strict mathematical sense, it is not even functional to have two different results from the same input). So, everytime you attempt a scientific experiment you can comfort yourself with the truth that God might have changed the results, or that you are measuring another realm perhaps. And if you really have faith, you can freely alter the results yourself to reflect the way “it should be” because, well, all things done in faith is (self)righteousness.
When have I suggested a non-scientific method?
I said the experience may be subjective. I can tell someone that they will feel pain if they touch a hot stove, but there isn’t any way for me to prove it to them. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
If you don’t believe my results (and the results of thousands of others), conduct the experiment yourself. Don’t take my word for it.
The Christ-Satan love-hate experiment you speak of was conducted fully for a thousand years during the dark ages, and is currently being conducted in about 80 countries where I would not want to live. Furthermore, there are third-world non-religious spinoff successors to the opposition control theories of the messianic eschatology concept, namely dogmatic communism.
Currently and locally, the massive worldwide experiment of socially low expectations and anti-intellectualism (employing self-righteousness) is being conducted in segments of the American population, ie, ultra-conservatives. Everywhere it goes, it fears the facts presented by realism as it spreads the foreign idea of hierarchy, and accordingly attempts to deny government services to economic victims of elitism (yet blames crime on the lack of top-down morality they are selling). Fo course, they tend to offer feelings instead, perhaps knowing no other way to figure the world, but these are hostile feelings, towards others (blaming the victim), the environment (end of the evil natural world) and ourselves (guilt).
This experiment of yours is toxic and poisonous, and your special Christology is worse than addictive drugs and likewise feeds on ignorance and passion, including all the negative passions. Did you ever stop to consider that you are selling blindness with your gospel of renunciation? Fortunately, you are benign. No one will ever see your hybrid point of view, it is ineffective by being unique, because it is not pure enough nonsense. I’ve seen the pure, and makes perfect sense to people when nothing can possibly make sense to them anymore. Christ is an empty life-raft for desperate and diseased mass ignorance to float forever without direction or power, it is not a sane luxury for healthy people.
I don’t expect you to see it this way, of course, not with two sets of values to draw from, one being objective, the other being necessary.
jmull, it is almost an act of faith to think that you are just humoring my dissent here, but in case you aren’t, 'round we go again…
No, you did. Look at what you quoted immediately preceding that reply. I will quote it again for you here…
I didn’t need to cite an example when you had already done it for me. The John passage above did that quite nicely.
As well, I covered Jesus’s commandments. They were in relation to a divine power…that is, “Do <this> because <god said so>.” Thus, implicit in the teachings and commandments of Jesus is the idea of God." Jesus as a man in no way implies a God, much like my existence does not imply God’s existence. Jesus argued from a position of authority as being the son of God, and so anything which relies on the teachings, opinions, or commandments therein imply divinity.
Holy shit. Remind me never to ask you what you think of deifying the second law of thermodynamics.