|
1 registered members (Quad),
454
guests, and 9
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PHeMoX]
#105135
02/20/07 16:11
02/20/07 16:11
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
By the way, when it comes to lawsuits, a nice video that talks about lawsuits about God/ID/evolution in classes is this one; It's a 1 hour and 57 minute long video though, but it's amazingly interesting and also puts forth some very good arguments; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PHeMoX]
#105136
02/20/07 19:04
02/20/07 19:04
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
It's very easy to convince people that they should have rights and properties and wealth when they do not have them
When did Jesus say that he would get them health, and wealth, and rights?
Quote:
Beggars, tramps, whores, low-lifes and mostly poor people were the initial targets so to speak Jesus was trying to convince.
He hit everyone, though usually only got responses from their version of the middle-class and below. Some rich people responded, but as Jesus said it was more difficult for them. That's just what's recorded, obviously the gospels can't detail everything. So there certainly would have been more people believing on him than we know about.
Quote:
In that society it was very obvious that having the largest part of the population believe in you would have a huge advantage and would be the only way to spread any ideas whatever they were and have power or influence or whatever Jesus' personal goal was.
If his personal goal was power or influence, then it appears he didn't even try to attain these things. As you've stated, not only did he hang around the Unimportant and the Low-lifes, but he didn't "address the roman senate" or write "Greek philosophical treatises" or any number of things that he could have done.
He also wouldn't have risked dying a "criminal's death" on the cross. One of the most shameful deaths possible.
Quote:
That is, if he even existed.
We have more evidence that Jesus existed than many other undisputed historical figures. Including secular references to his existence. So there really is no need to play the "Jesus myth" game. His existence wouldn't be questioned by anyone today if it weren't for a few no-names trying to cause a stir by promulgating their amateur theories.
Quote:
Hence it's not about who asked what, it's moreso about how people responded to Jesus' answers. Jesus said God loved everyone, promised everyone can go to heaven, beggars, whores and criminals too and so on and so forth. There's no evidence in favor of any of those messages, not now and not then, thus they still must have had blind faith. That's what religion is based upon.
Here's where we have a problem. Your basic premise seems to be the following: Even if Christianity has some evidence, some of its claims have no evidence and therefore require blind faith.
If I remember correctly, you make this point again so I'll respond to it at that time.
Quote:
There's off course no historical evidence for this, infact when it comes to the early church there are enough things that make it more than legit to question the church's entire integrity right from the start. Like for example the voting on wether or not Jesus should be called 'son of God' and more very basic things like that.
That Jesus was the Son of God and was divine was already well established. There were a few people who dissented on the nature of Jesus' divinity, ie whether He existed eternally or was created.
A few points:
-Jesus described himself, along with other new testament writers, in reference to the Wisdom of God. Which itself was a pre-NT divine figure, thought of as an attribute of God personified.
-Jesus called himself the "Son of Man" which was a phrase associated with a divine figure in Daniel chapter 7.
-Some NT verses about Jesus' divinity: John 1:1 "the Word was God." John 5:18 "calling God His own Father, making himself equal with God", John 20:28 "[you are] my Lord and my God", Titus 2:13 "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ", Romans 9:5 "God over all, blessed forever", Collosians 2:9 "within Him dwells all the fullness of being God in bodily form".
The early church was almost universally in agreement on all major doctrine, but as some people attempted to promulgate their heterodox views on Jesus and so forth, standards had to be established.
Apparently, one of the things that really helps one understand Jesus' relation to the Father, is Semitic Wisdom theology.
Quote:
What about the other writings that are not part of the bible?
What about them. They were rejected by a church that in general was united on major doctrinal points. I think the burden of proof is on you to show why any book should have been included in the canon. But, to name a few reasons why gospels and such were rejected:
-No evidence leading to the authorship of an actual Apostle. Many of these gospels weren't very well established, and were accepted by a minority, and had no evidence that they were even written in the proper time.
-The gospel itself contains heretical doctrine? If so, then why would the church accept it?
-Does the gospel contain information that doesn't conform with what a historical Jesus would have done? For instance, if we have a gospel claiming that Jesus smote his enemies with an AK-47, then we have a problem. Believe it or not, gospels that attempted to "rewrite history" actually were written, and it should be plain to see why they were thrown out (though none of them had extreme examples like the one above).
Quote:
The church simpy decided so, all to ensure their power probably.
A very nice blanket statement, but it might only cast doubt on a Christian who has no idea how the canon was decided in the first place. That wouldn't include me, and so I won't be throwing out my bible any time soon.
Quote:
In the end there's no reason to assume followers did not have blind faith in what was told, considering things like that slipped through without questions.
You act as if the Christian church was confused and huddle in a corner, with no idea what it believed until finally Constantine came along and saved them from their lack of ideology. Fact of the matter is, the ideology was already settled, it just had yet to be completely standardized. And in light of those who wanted to subvert the establishment, it only made sense that they finally did standardize their ideology (though its not like the heretics had THAT much influence anyway).
Quote:
If a church suddenly starts stating Jesus was the son of god then people must have had blind faith, otherwise they would have demanded proof,
See above. This was already established as a standard belief. Dissenters lost because they were the ones asking people to believe things with no 'proof', if you will.
Quote:
Especially the last sentence is a perfect example of why I know the bible and church's teachings are full of psychological and philosophical traps. It's way too easy to say 'hush, we are right and you shouldn't be asking for the impossible', when all that was done was ask a legit question or demand for real evidence. An empty tomb doesn't prove anything, especially not the story that Jesus ascended to heaven. It's like saying 'on that table over there once lay an apple that has fallen down and now lies on a stone' when all we can see is that table, no apple, no stone and we were not witnisses of the claimed event. Therefor even his demand for (you call it 'more') evidence was definately legit,
Ok, here's where you seem to bring up the "blind faith" point again. The problem, for you, is that you aren't exempt from this yourself.
Before I get started, I would like to say that I prefer the more polite term, "indirect faith", rather than blind faith to refer to things like this. "Blind faith" has negative associations that go along with it, so I like to avoid it.
There is evidence for my faith. There are tangible things that lead me to believe that I have faith in something true. Now...that doesn't mean I can prove everything. I had someone ask me, "How do you prove that heaven exists?" So I told them that you can't! Its impossible. I believe it indirectly because I have reason to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and He said, "In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you." Jesus Himself recognizes that we have no tangible proof of heaven. We believe it, because we believe Him. Its indirect faith, if you will. If I had a reason to doubt Him, then I would have a reason to doubt heaven. Now...
You seem to frown upon this sort of faith, but then I feel the need to remind you that you're still missing millions (at minimum) of transitional fossils. And yet you believe these organisms still existed at some point. This is indirect "faith", its not based on any direct evidence (a fossil) its based indirectly on other evidence that you think verifies evolution as a whole, and so for you, even though there is no direct evidence that these creatures existed, they still must have existed because you believe evolution.
So, if you want to prove that our "blind faith", or indirect faith as I like to call it, is irrational, all you have to do is come up with millions of transitional fossils. 
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 02/20/07 19:05.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#105137
02/20/07 20:43
02/20/07 20:43
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
We have more evidence that Jesus existed than many other undisputed historical figures. Including secular references to his existence. So there really is no need to play the "Jesus myth" game. His existence wouldn't be questioned by anyone today if it weren't for a few no-names trying to cause a stir by promulgating their amateur theories.
You probably have this from hearsay, because there really is no evidence for a Jesus as mentioned in the bible. Furthermore the name Jesus was very common back then, so even finding his name would mean little to nothing as far as the historical person Jesus goes as described in the bible.
Quote:
Fact of the matter is, the ideology was already settled, it just had yet to be completely standardized. And in light of those who wanted to subvert the establishment, it only made sense that they finally did standardize their ideology (though its not like the heretics had THAT much influence anyway).
Lol, they rejected some gospels that had more right being in the bible as others purely judged on their content and those are not just my words. Anyways, I probably lack knowledge to go into this in greater detail, let alone do I know all rejected gospels. Why would you want to standardize supposed truths? It's an act of control trying to influence any standard, wether it was right or wrong is quite irrelevant. It's about the change of content and according to some the ideology wasn't well established at all, why else would they need to standardize it? Apart from that Constantine wasn't the only one 'changing' the ideology,
Quote:
Ok, here's where you seem to bring up the "blind faith" point again. The problem, for you, is that you aren't exempt from this yourself.
Okey, off course you're free to claim so but exactly which part of my view is based upon blind faith then??
Quote:
So, if you want to prove that our "blind faith", or indirect faith as I like to call it, is irrational, all you have to do is come up with millions of transitional fossils.
As the youtube video I posted earlier clearly shows there are more than plenty of transitional fossils, I really challenge you to watch it fully from start untill the end,
Quote:
And yet you believe these organisms still existed at some point.
No, in this case I don't believe these organisms existed, I simply know so because of the evidence found in the fossil record.
One last remark about 'our' evidence, often creationists take outdated information and attack us on that, but the last few decades have provided really a lot of evidence and answers (and also new questions/problems off course),
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PHeMoX]
#105138
02/23/07 01:03
02/23/07 01:03
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
By the way, when it comes to lawsuits, a nice video that talks about lawsuits about God/ID/evolution in classes is this one;
It's a 1 hour and 57 minute long video though, but it's amazingly interesting and also puts forth some very good arguments; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg
It was a great presentation: highly entertaining, informative, and so forth. There were many points that seemed to miss their mark, however, so it could have been done better as far as I can see.
Of course, I could quickly create an opposing presentation using material like, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." and such, but overall it didn't seem to me that Mr. Miller cared to cater to people of my persuasion to begin with.
Quote:
You probably have this from hearsay, because there really is no evidence for a Jesus as mentioned in the bible. Furthermore the name Jesus was very common back then, so even finding his name would mean little to nothing as far as the historical person Jesus goes as described in the bible.
How do you know any of this? Hearsay? I doubt even that much, because even the Jesus Mythers are willing to acknowledge that there are secular historical references to the existence of Jesus.
Quote:
Lol, they rejected some gospels that had more right being in the bible as others purely judged on their content and those are not just my words.
And again, I'll wait until there is some reasonable evidence that we wrongfully excluded some gospels.
Quote:
Why would you want to standardize supposed truths?
Because, as in science, there are a myriad of viewpoints and if something wasn't established, then even the "crazies" would get their say. I think you should sympathize with this, unless you would rather (as a parallel) that it be easier for YECs and flat-earthers to spread their views on science?
Quote:
It's an act of control trying to influence any standard
As I've already said, nothing was being influenced, this was just a standardization of well-established beliefs.
Quote:
wether it was right or wrong is quite irrelevant.
Then let's open up the debate on evolution to all comers then.
The thing is, if you don't like what the bible says, then choose your own canon. Nothing stopped that one early American president from cutting passages out of his bible.
The church wanted their views standardized to protect against heretics, that's all.
Quote:
It's about the change of content and according to some the ideology wasn't well established at all, why else would they need to standardize it?
To protect against heretics. It really is quite ridiculous to imagine that the church didn't believe anything until the canon came along. The ideology was already pretty well established.
Quote:
Apart from that Constantine wasn't the only one 'changing' the ideology,
Actually, Constantine really didn't have much of a hand in the matter. His side ended up losing the "debate", and in fact his side lost big time. He simply provided the forum for standardization.
Quote:
As the youtube video I posted earlier clearly shows there are more than plenty of transitional fossils, I really challenge you to watch it fully from start untill the end,
I did, and honestly it didn't teach me much of anything new about evolution.
Quote:
No, in this case I don't believe these organisms existed, I simply know so because of the evidence found in the fossil record.
That statement violates the law of non-contradiction. But taking the latter part on its own, you prove my point. You believe it indirectly, based on the evidence that you have.
I'm not attacking evolution on this point, as I think it would be necessary to be an evolutionist and understand that you simply can't have direct evidence for EVERYTHING. My only point is that you can't call out Christians on this point, because we aren't the only ones doing this.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#105139
02/23/07 02:05
02/23/07 02:05
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
There were many points that seemed to miss their mark, however, so it could have been done better as far as I can see.
Could you give an example please, I'm not sure if I fully understand what you mean by this.
Quote:
Of course, I could quickly create an opposing presentation using material like, "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
Which would mean you'd probably rip it out of it's context, like you do now by excluding the point he made with this, because he indicated that I.D. based on the arguments given by Behe and co. was nonsense, especially since they wanted to change the whole definition of 'science' if I recall correctly ... lol 
No offense, but how can you even argue with Miller's evidence? He effectively counters I.D. on all it's major points and actually provides evidence for it too. Infact, he also mentions one of the biggest misconceptions or points of ignorancy if you like of creationists, the claim that there are 'no intermediates in the fossil record', which is plain wrong.
Although it should not matter at all he's also a religious person himself. He may not be a creationist like you, but he's not against religion as apposed to for example Dawkins. He bases his claims all on legit evidence and uses rationalism.
Quote:
I doubt even that much, because even the Jesus Mythers are willing to acknowledge that there are secular historical references to the existence of Jesus.
Secular historical references like which?? There's really no historical reference mentioning a Jesus which without any doubt must have been the Jesus mentioned in the bible. The 'shakespeare argument' doesn't apply when it comes to documents and names. You know they say; 'but it's said Shakespeare didn't write his plays,' with as response 'well then there must have been someone else at the same time with the same name'.
Unfortunately the hand full of "historical references" that could be real only mention Jesus' name and practically nothing more. It is often argued Josephus mentioned Jesus' brother and thus Jesus like this: "James, the brother of Jesus who is called Christ,.." etc. But this is one of many later Christian interpolations, not based upon a real translation and many scholars agree with this.
By the way, you've got to understand that what's required for historical references to be valid, is that it should also have been made during or short after Christ's death. That's a requirement none of the references actually meet,
Quote:
That statement violates the law of non-contradiction. But taking the latter part on its own, you prove my point. You believe it indirectly, based on the evidence that you have.
I'm sorry, but I don't think i quite understand your point. My view is based upon evidence, I've seen a lot of fossils myself too, I've read about the arguments and also the criteria they rationally should meet and is predicted if the evolution theory is right and they all meet them. The evidence doesn't fit the theory, the theory fit's the evidence. The evidence counts, that's what science is all about,
Quote:
My only point is that you can't call out Christians on this point, because we aren't the only ones doing this.
No, you reject evidence, that's different.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PHeMoX]
#105140
02/24/07 18:24
02/24/07 18:24
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Could you give an example please, I'm not sure if I fully understand what you mean by this.
No, sorry. I don't feel like debating his points, if I'm going to be honest with you.
Quote:
\Which would mean you'd probably rip it out of it's context, like you do now by excluding the point he made with this, because he indicated that I.D. based on the arguments given by Behe and co. was nonsense, especially since they wanted to change the whole definition of 'science' if I recall correctly ... lol
Of course, that assumes that the quote comes from Ken Miller and not one Dr. Scott Todd.
Quote:
No offense, but how can you even argue with Miller's evidence? He effectively counters I.D. on all it's major points and actually provides evidence for it too.
I suppose if I heard a creationist presentation I would also say, "How could anyone argue with that?!" myself.
Quote:
Infact, he also mentions one of the biggest misconceptions or points of ignorancy if you like of creationists, the claim that there are 'no intermediates in the fossil record', which is plain wrong.
That depends on how you look at it. Transitional fossils are only transitional if animals actually transition.
Quote:
Secular historical references like which?? There's really no historical reference mentioning a Jesus which without any doubt must have been the Jesus mentioned in the bible.
Of course, if you want to play that game, then we can't be sure about the historical existence of pretty much any ancient historical figure.
You're doing little more than dealing Jesus an unfair hand because you have a bias. If we applied your same "without a doubt" criteria to all historical figures, then we would pretty much run out of historical figures.
Quote:
Unfortunately the hand full of "historical references" that could be real only mention Jesus' name and practically nothing more. It is often argued Josephus mentioned Jesus' brother and thus Jesus like this: "James, the brother of Jesus who is called Christ,.." etc. But this is one of many later Christian interpolations, not based upon a real translation and many scholars agree with this.
Of course, the issue isn't that simple. For one thing, I don't know of anyone who doesn't agree that it isn't all genuine. However, the only ones who argue that the WHOLE thing isn't genuine are (guess who!) Jesus Mythers. Even liberal scholars agree that its at least partially genuine. Amongst non-Christ-mythers, this is what the passage is thought to have said (at somewhat of a minimum):
Quote:
At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) had not died out.
Is there always doubt? With everything, there's always doubt. (Unless you're an evolutionist, in which case you have unwavering faith in evolution). But, and this is just one reference, we can see that one wouldn't be unjustified in believing that Jesus was a real historical figure. With JUST this one passage, we have more evidence than many other historical figures that are believed to have existed.
Quote:
By the way, you've got to understand that what's required for historical references to be valid, is that it should also have been made during or short after Christ's death. That's a requirement none of the references actually meet,
Of course, I'm sure it wouldn't matter to you that Josephus himself was born only a few years after Jesus' execution.
But this is another false requirement. The gospels themselves, (despite their religious slant) if they were truly written at about 70 a.d. are written much sooner after the life of Jesus than other writings. Some historical figures don't have any literary evidence until hundreds of years after their death! And yet your false requirement isn't placed on them.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but I don't think i quite understand your point. My view is based upon evidence, I've seen a lot of fossils myself too, I've read about the arguments and also the criteria they rationally should meet and is predicted if the evolution theory is right and they all meet them. The evidence doesn't fit the theory, the theory fit's the evidence. The evidence counts, that's what science is all about,
This is the second time I've had this discussion, and this is the second time this defensive stance has been taken. I'm not saying evolution has no evidence. What I'm saying is that some things (in fact many things) about evolution are believed indirectly based on that evidence.
That's the last time I'm going to repeat that point. If you don't get it after reading that, then you're not going to get it. The other guy refused to budge, and after a while it just became futile.
Quote:
No, you reject evidence, that's different.
Pot calling the kettle black, eh?
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#105141
02/24/07 20:01
02/24/07 20:01
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
I'm not saying evolution has no evidence. What I'm saying is that some things (in fact many things) about evolution are believed indirectly based on that evidence.
Inderectly based on evidence? Like what? You can actually derive from these fossils that they must have been transitional. All evidence points in the right direction and everything that should be true if the theory is true ís true. The parts of the evolution theory that are questionable moreso have to do with early life, not so much with wether or not fossils are the evidence of transitional animals. Your statement about 'indirectly based on evidence' doesn't make much sense anyways, since we're talking about the long gone past. However remnants of that past are direct evidence. Take a murder scene for example, if you find the blood covered weapon, that would indeed be indirect evidence for a murder perhaps, but it's still solid evidence that it has actually happened. Can't say that about the bible.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: God's Defense Strategy
[Re: PHeMoX]
#105142
02/27/07 03:47
02/27/07 03:47
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Inderectly based on evidence? Like what? You can actually derive from these fossils that they must have been transitional. All evidence points in the right direction and everything that should be true if the theory is true ís true. The parts of the evolution theory that are questionable moreso have to do with early life, not so much with wether or not fossils are the evidence of transitional animals. Your statement about 'indirectly based on evidence' doesn't make much sense anyways, since we're talking about the long gone past. However remnants of that past are direct evidence. Take a murder scene for example, if you find the blood covered weapon, that would indeed be indirect evidence for a murder perhaps, but it's still solid evidence that it has actually happened. Can't say that about the bible.
Ok, I think you're kind of getting my point, then. I'm assuming for the sake of the discussion that all the evidence lines up with evolution. My point was that, even so, many things about the theory are believed indirectly, based on the evidence. So, I don't think we're really disagreeing so much as you seem to think I'm attacking the validity of evolution which I'm not.
edit:
Apparently Ken Miller either lied about what Behe said, or he helped spread a lie without checking his sources. When he said that all the papers written on the evolution of the immune system "weren't enough", what was actually stated was: "It’s not that they aren’t good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a different subject."
This is the same sort of rap the judge tried to push on Behe, but it was a misrepresentation pulled right out from the ACLU's "findings". What's also interesting to me, is that the judge was praised for his "decision" which was apparently ripped straight from those same ACLU "findings".
Also, Ken Miller has missed the boat on why ID is rejected. There are some scientists who have conceded that ID is a valid theory, and others who say it can never be a valid theory because it isn't naturalistic.
But to say that IDers can get their theory into textbooks through the peer-review system is ridiculous. Considering that guy who was fired for allowing a ID paper to be published, and even our legal system (typically favoring evolutionists) has shown that his rights were infringed on numerous accounts and that what was done to him was illegal. But after that, who would dare even try and publish anything mentioning ID?
Now, I'd like to hear the real story behind the supposed comments from Behe that science should include astrology. Because it appears to me that evolutionists are doing little more than "politicizing" science.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 02/27/07 17:21.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
