[koogz]

Originally posted by MindFad:
Oh, we were trying to have a serious conversation here on MacNN? Nice.

Maybe I missed it, or my PhDecoder ring was set to Serious Business�.

I thought the GIF was funny anyway; I wasn't being bigoted or mean at all. An old GIF joke about Zim's claim to have seen a person's leg grow back before his eyes�obviously through the power of Jesus.

You missed it alright jackass. Maybe if you believe, Jesus will help you grow your brain past pea size.

[MindFad]

I'm so glad I got in on this thread. If we try hard guys, we could make it legendary.

[chris v]

Can someone please embed an MP3 file of "I Got You, Babe" by Sonny and Cher in the Pol/war html so that it plays every time we click the link?

Fad: I missed that gif originally. ****ing classic.

<-- #1 fad fan.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by undotwa:
It is important to note the times in which each testament was written. As these books were written (under the influence of the holy spirit) by men and thus bear the mark of their perspective. The Jews were a suffering people, often being suppressed by their powerful neighbours. Therefore God seemed more angry in the Old Testament because precisely the proud Jews were themselves angry, a lost people awaiting their Messiah.

The New Testament breathes a new life of optimism into the souls of men, of the arrival and return of their promised Messiah. So no, God hasn't changed his modus operandi (as God's will is one, constant and eternal), rather the perspective which we write about God has.

So God commanded an equal amount of peope to be slaughtered between the OT and NT? If not, he IS more angry in one of them.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Dakar:
So God commanded an equal amount of peope to be slaughtered between the OT and NT? If not, he IS more angry in one of them.

This is the Christian response:

What does 'slaughtering' have to do with anger? God as our creator is reserved the right to end or begin lives however He wills. Whatever He does is most just.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by undotwa:
What does 'slaughtering' have to do with anger?

It's part of the act. You don't kill devoid of emotion. Moreover, I don't believe he was entirely pleased with what certain people were doing; hence he ordered their deaths.

Originally posted by undotwa:
God as our creator is reserved the right to end or begin lives however He wills. Whatever He does is most just.

This basically boils down to, "Don't question God."

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Dakar:


This basically boils down to, "Don't question God."

Hey... you figured it out!!!!! Congratulations!

[Dakar]

Originally posted by NYCFarmboy:
Hey... you figured it out!!!!! Congratulations!

I fail to see anything positive in that conclusion, however.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Dakar:
It's part of the act. You don't kill devoid of emotion. Moreover, I don't believe he was entirely pleased with what certain people were doing; hence he ordered their deaths.

This basically boils down to, "Don't question God."

You question God as much as you like, just remember to be respectful.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You question God as much as you like, just remember to be respectful.

Well, I'd have to 'hear' him first, I suppose.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You question God as much as you like, just remember to be respectful.

I think it's important for Christians to remember that our entire religion is built upon one act: Jesus being raised from the dead. It's like an upside down pyramid. Thinking like that makes you feel quite funny indeed. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, we're all stuffed.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by undotwa:
If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, we're all stuffed.

Not really. We'd merely have to do what Judaism requires. Christianity wouldn't exist.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by undotwa:
If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, we're all stuffed.

could you please explain this one.

[bamburg dunes]

A bit late to this debate, but I think the religious folks can put their happy clappy attitudes back in the bag. He does not believe in "God", but rather that higher mechanisms could be at work in the formation of the universe, big difference.

Now back to Sonny & Cher.

[bamburg dunes]

Originally posted by undotwa:
I think it's important for Christians to remember that our entire religion is built upon one act: Jesus being raised from the dead. It's like an upside down pyramid. Thinking like that makes you feel quite funny indeed. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, we're all stuffed.

Then you guys are fuked, since Jesus was no more raised from the dead than the ancient Hindus flew on magic airships.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by bamburg dunes:
Then you guys are fuked, since Jesus was no more raised from the dead than the ancient Hindus flew on magic airships.

Well, since you obviously were there, you would know this, eh? What proof do you have for this assertion regarding Jesus?

[demograph68]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Well, since you obviously were there, you would know this, eh? What proof do you have for this assertion regarding Jesus?

I was probed by aliens last night.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by demograph68:
I was probed by aliens last night.

Fair enough. However, I'm not quite sure how your sex life fits in with the current discussion.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Well, since you obviously were there, you would know this, eh? What proof do you have for this assertion regarding Jesus?

The people who wrote the evidence used to support the resurrection weren't there either.

Although I agree with undotwa that the resurrection is the central Christian belief, I think that's very unfortunate. When that became the central belief, Jesus' life and teachings became irrelevant, and instead the religion became based on believing something that is, well I won't say false, but extremely difficult to reconcile with modern life.

In addition, the logic of it just doesn't make sense to me. First, why would God have his son killed in order to save us? What does that mean? To a modern person, who doesn't practice animal sacrifice to atone for sins like the Jews of the time, it just doesn't make sense.

And I've got a question for folks: Was Jesus resurrected bodily or just in spirit?

[undotwa]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
could you please explain this one.

THE central teaching of Christianity, on which all other doctrine hangs is that Jesus rose from the dead. To me this, not the Nicene creed, is what determines whether you are Christian or not. (After all, the Arians were Christians). Christianity would otherwise be just another false religion.

This is why Moslems deny that Jesus rose from the dead.

[undotwa]

And I've got a question for folks: Was Jesus resurrected bodily or just in spirit?

Most Christians believe it was full body, a few though deny this.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by undotwa:
THE central teaching of Christianity, on which all other doctrine hangs is that Jesus rose from the dead. To me this, not the Nicene creed, is what determines whether you are Christian or not. (After all, the Arians were Christians). Christianity would otherwise be just another false religion.

This is why Moslems deny that Jesus rose from the dead.

Actually the two are intertwined, to believe in the Nicene Creed is to believe in the Resurrection.

"for us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven.
By the power of the Holy Spirit
he born of the virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the scriptures."

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Well, since you obviously were there, you would know this, eh? What proof do you have for this assertion regarding Jesus?

Positive proof is not required to support superstitions, but is required to refute them? It would be quite something if we still operated this way in, ahem, real life:

Party A: "Your Honor, it would be premature to probate Mr. Smith's Will - we believe he arose from the dead and is coming back."

Party B: "You've got to be kidding me."

Court to Party B: "But you weren't there. Can you prove he didn't arise from the dead or that he's not coming back? Believe in teh Majick!"

People should not be afraid to call nonsense nonsense.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Positive proof is not required to support superstitions, but is required to refute them? It would be quite something if we still operated this way in, ahem, real life:

Party A: "Your Honor, it would be premature to probate Mr. Smith's Will - we believe he arose from the dead and is coming back."

Party B: "You've got to be kidding me."

Court to Party B: "But you weren't there. Can you prove he didn't arise from the dead or that he's not coming back? Believe in teh Majick!"

People should not be afraid to call nonsense nonsense.

He made the assertion, he should provide proof. How many times have we heard that from you fellas? If it's so easily refuted, you do it. Prove that the man Eshu, aka. Jesus, didn't raise from the dead. Not some snappy inane joke, not some insipid cartoon, some proof. C'mon, dazzle us.

But no, you call it nonsense. Well, that affirms it for me. Your "real life" is what you believe, it stops at your own nose, kiddo.

FWIW, I don't believe in the Resurrection in a literal sense, but I do show some respect for the value of their myth and their beliefs.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
He made the assertion, he should provide proof. How many times have we heard that from you fellas? If it's so easily refuted, you do it. Prove that the man Eshu, aka. Jesus, didn't raise from the dead. Not some snappy inane joke, not some insipid cartoon, some proof. C'mon, dazzle us.

But no, you call it nonsense. Well, that affirms it for me. Your "real life" is what you believe, it stops at your own nose, kiddo.

FWIW, I don't believe in the Resurrection in a literal sense, but I do show some respect for the value of their myth and their beliefs.

I already demonstrated with a rather simple example that it's irrational to not require proof of a positive factual assertion, yet require proof to refute it. That's what you implied, and it's nonsense, and I'm not afraid to say so. If we conducted our lives on that basis, we would still be in the Dark Ages. Trial by drowning, in which women are tied up and thrown in a pond in order to elicit proof that they aren't witches, would be considered the ne plus ultra of legal and factual inquiry.

You didn't rebut my point - you raised an entirely separate issue: "[R]espect for the value of their myths and beliefs" (indeed, you appear to agree that we're talking about a myth, so I'm not even sure why you challenged bamberg dunes's post). I respect other people's right to believe whatever they like, and I might recognize the emotional and social value in it, but that's a different matter than accepting a given belief as fact.

If I said "My car gets 200 miles to the gallon" in a public forum, I would expect people to call me on it. I don't see any particular reason why religious doctrine (or any alleged supernatural occurence) passed off as fact should be treated differently.

I think your real reason for challenging bamberg dunes' post was that although you agree with him factually, you thought he was insufficiently tactful in expressing his skepticism. I've found that this presents something of a conundrum: religion is so personal to some people that any publicly-expressed skepticism is considered offensive. I don't accept that: if I believe a given belief is irrational or fraudulent, I believe I have the right to say so in frank terms, just as I believe undotwa had the right to say that he believes homosexuality is a perversion (much as I think his belief is archaic).

I like this guy's take on it:

Identity politics is a powerful thing--a way of short-circuiting debate by claiming that your views aren't merely views; they are an integral part of who you are. And who you are must be respected. But harsh criticism is not disrespect--and to claim it is undermines democratic debate by denying opponents the right to aggressively, even impolitely, disagree. That is what conservatives are doing when they accuse liberals of religious bigotry merely for demanding that the Christian Right defend their viewpoints with facts, not faith.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=3rJM...Si19xthl%3D%3D

Note: I don't mean to lump undotwa with the so-called "Christian Right" here - I know his political beliefs differ from theirs in some respects. But the point about public debate remains.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
He made the assertion, he should provide proof. How many times have we heard that from you fellas? If it's so easily refuted, you do it. Prove that the man Eshu, aka. Jesus, didn't raise from the dead. Not some snappy inane joke, not some insipid cartoon, some proof. C'mon, dazzle us.

But no, you call it nonsense. Well, that affirms it for me. Your "real life" is what you believe, it stops at your own nose, kiddo.

FWIW, I don't believe in the Resurrection in a literal sense, but I do show some respect for the value of their myth and their beliefs.

The problem I have is this:
1. To deny the Resurrection, I need to make one assertion: human bodies (and all material things) always have and always will operate according to a static set of laws; we don't know those laws precisely, but can infer roughly how they work. Bodily resurrection is not among them.

2. To assert the Resurrection, I must allege that those static laws do not hold. In particular, I assert that a human body rose from the dead, a few thousands miles East of here, about 1971 years ago. Okay.

Moreover, having abandoned the static laws, the Christian must now explain why innumerable other resurrections, miracles, and such did not occur. Why is Joseph Smith wrong, Mohammed wrong, Buddha wrong, Wavoka the Paiute Prophet wrong, Mithras (cough) wrong, Black Elk wrong, etc. etc. Either you believe the laws are static and do not include miracles, or you must disprove them, painstakingly, one-by-one.

By Occam's Razor, I would prefer to simply assume that all such phenomena spring from a common source, i.e. the human brain in all its wonderous capacity for storytelling, and leave it at that.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Actually the two are intertwined, to believe in the Nicene Creed is to believe in the Resurrection.

"for us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven.
By the power of the Holy Spirit
he born of the virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the scriptures."

Dude, I'm well aware of the contents of the Nicene creed.

My point was though, were someone not to believe in the Nicene creed, but believed Jesus rose from the dead, I would still consider them Christians. The Nicene creed contains much more than Jesus' rising from the dead.

The Nicene Creed is actually founded upon the authority given to the Apostles and their Successors by Jesus Christ, which he holds because he rose from the dead. The Nicene Creed gives further example to how our faith is like a pyramid resting upon this one act - Jesus' rising from the dead.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I already demonstrated with a rather simple example that it's irrational to not require proof of a positive factual assertion, yet require proof to refute it. That's what you implied, and it's nonsense, and I'm not afraid to say so. If we conducted our lives on that basis, we would still be in the Dark Ages. Trial by drowning, in which women are tied up and thrown in a pond in order to elicit proof that they aren't witches, would be considered the ne plus ultra of legal and factual inquiry.

You didn't rebut my point - you raised an entirely separate issue: "[R]espect for the value of their myths and beliefs" (indeed, you appear to agree that we're talking about a myth, so I'm not even sure why you challenged bamberg dunes's post). I respect other people's right to believe whatever they like, and I might recognize the emotional and social value in it, but that's a different matter than accepting a given belief as fact.

If I said "My car gets 200 miles to the gallon" in a public forum, I would expect people to call me on it. I don't see any particular reason why religious doctrine (or any alleged supernatural occurence) passed off as fact should be treated differently.

I think your real reason for challenging bamberg dunes' post was that although you agree with him factually, you thought he was insufficiently tactful in expressing his skepticism. I've found that this presents something of a conundrum: religion is so personal to some people that any publicly-expressed skepticism is considered offensive. I don't accept that: if I believe a given belief is irrational or fraudulent, I believe I have the right to say so in frank terms, just as I believe undotwa had the right to say that he believes homosexuality is a perversion (much as I think his belief is archaic).

I like this guy's take on it:



http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=3rJM...Si19xthl%3D%3D

Note: I don't mean to lump undotwa with the so-called "Christian Right" here - I know his political beliefs differ from theirs in some respects. But the point about public debate remains.

By myth, I'm not saying it's fantasy. The term "myth" when used in this context means:

1. A traditional, typically ancient, story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.

2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal.

As for backing up the assertion, you still haven't. See, that's the problem with anti-Theists, they'll bellow that the religious can't back up their assertions, but at the same time will trash the beliefs of the spiritual with their own assertions about Jesus (or Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus, etc.) but really have no evidence (or knowledge) regarding any of those ancient myths. It simply doesn't fit into their "world view" so they're dismissive and abusive. It doesn't take much in the way of mental acumen to figure out that these myths are crucial for mankind's development/advancement, and when they're ignored we suffer.

It's theorized (by myself and others) that there's a phenomena called an egregore. It's a group's cumulative belief in a specific spiritual thing or myth. Their belief gives a degree of power to that myth (or "construct"), and the myth in turn answers questions regarding mankind's nature, as well as empowering individuals, through faith or will, to do things that they wouldn't normally be capable. It's kind of like a symbiotic spiritual "partnership", if you will. Since it's specific to the group, your belief in it is largely irrelevant. Currently, the scientific egregore is quite powerful, and will only become moreso as we evolve, unless we happen upon an unforeseeable stumbling block in it's development.

"Fact" is a very odd thing. They can be specific to an individual or group, or in very rare instances, the entire system. I can't say that I really believe in "facts" though, at least not on an all encompassing scale. Facts, bleh, truth is much more beautiful.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Dude, I'm well aware of the contents of the Nicene creed.

My point was though, were someone not to believe in the Nicene creed, but believed Jesus rose from the dead, I would still consider them Christians. The Nicene creed contains much more than Jesus' rising from the dead.

The Nicene Creed is actually founded upon the authority given to the Apostles and their Successors by Jesus Christ, which he holds because he rose from the dead. The Nicene Creed gives further example to how our faith is like a pyramid resting upon this one act - Jesus' rising from the dead.

I suppose that's where we'll disagree then. I know Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and Pagans who believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. But, they're not Christian, and they'll be quick to point that out to you.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
"for us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven.
By the power of the Holy Spirit
he born of the virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the scriptures."

Interesting. Did Jesus know he was coming to fulfill scripture? did he know he was to be put to death and arise in 3 days time?

[koogz]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Interesting. Did Jesus know he was coming to fulfill scripture? did he know he was to be put to death and arise in 3 days time?

Some would say, no - not at first, but then he gained the realization of who he really was. I liken this to finding one's self and fulfilling your 'destiny'.

or, others would say, yes - he did know the entire time since birth, and was well aware.

It has been argued over and over again. What do you think?

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by koogz:
Some would say, no - not at first, but then he gained the realization of who he really was. I liken this to finding one's self and fulfilling your 'destiny'.
or, others would say, yes - he did know the entire time since birth, and was well aware.
It has been argued over and over again. What do you think?

What do I think? I don't think Jesus was the son of Jehova...

but according to the Bible I'd say he knew he was sent to fulfill prophecy.

Doesn't that make the sacrifice half-assed? If you are the son of Jehovah and you know this and you can perform miracles and speak with your father (Jehovah) and you know the prophecy and what will happen, doesn't it seem kind of "just for show" to do all this KNOWING you will be resurrected and will be in heaven afterwards?

Sure, pain, suffering, betrayal and doubt sucks, but seems silly?

I know ive posted this somewhere before, lol... Any ideas about all this?

[koogz]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
What do I think? I don't think Jesus was the son of Jehova...

but according to the Bible I'd say he knew he was sent to fulfill prophecy.

Doesn't that make the sacrifice half-assed? If you are the son of Jehovah and you know this and you can perform miracles and speak with your father (Jehovah) and you know the prophecy and what will happen, doesn't it seem kind of "just for show" to do all this KNOWING you will be resurrected and will be in heaven afterwards?

Sure, pain, suffering, betrayal and doubt sucks, but seems silly?

I know ive posted this somewhere before, lol... Any ideas about all this?

I have a few ideas.

- I don't think his sacrifice was 'half-assed' as you put it. He had to go through the stages of mortal humanity in order to fulfill his sacrifice more fully. He could perform miracles, but do you think miracles alone would make believers out of any and everyone? I think back then, just as today, people would think them tricks, but a man, a mortal man, being put through what no mortal man could survive, and then having compassion for those who were doing this to him, would do more good than dozens of miracles. His gift was to show us, we could do the same, and be ressurected and live with him for eternity.

HIs sacrifice was the ultimate, and far from 'half-assed'.

Like I wrote. Some believe he did not know, and some thought he was aware at birth.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by koogz:
I don't think his sacrifice was 'half-assed' as you put it. He had to go through the stages of mortal humanity in order to fulfill his sacrifice more fully. He could perform miracles, but do you think miracles alone would make believers out of any and everyone? I think back then, just as today, people would think them tricks, but a man, a mortal man, being put through what no mortal man could survive, and then having compassion for those who were doing this to him, would do more good than dozens of miracles. His gift was to show us, we could do the same, and be ressurected and live with him for eternity.

The miracles that are described would do a hell of a lot for anyone witnessing them I would imagine.

You make some good points, Still I brought up the miracles bit to stress that he KNEW he was the son of Jehovah, he knew he WOULD be resurrected, no doubt about it.

Sure it was tuff, I said that in my post, but being tuff doesn't mean it was some giant sacrifice, would you jump in front of a bus to push your child out of the way? Would you do the same knowing they might survive later on [post op]?

As for your last comment, what does "live with him for eternity" mean? What purpose is there? Do you think you will just chill with Jehovah up in heaven for eternity?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Interesting. Did Jesus know he was coming to fulfill scripture? did he know he was to be put to death and arise in 3 days time?

Well, in scripture he tells John the Baptist to baptize him:

Matt 3:13-17

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

So, here, he clearly knows something regarding his divinity, and that he was sent to "fulfill all righteousness".

To address the other part of your question:

John 2: 18-21

18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?
21 But he spake of the temple of his body.

So, yes, he knew.

[koogz]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
The miracles that are described would do a hell of a lot for anyone witnessing them I would imagine.

You make some good points, Still I brought up the miracles bit to stress that he KNEW he was the son of Jehovah, he knew he WOULD be resurrected, no doubt about it.

Sure it was tuff, I said that in my post, but being tuff doesn't mean it was some giant sacrifice, would you jump in front of a bus to push your child out of the way? Would you do the same knowing they might survive later on [post op]?

As for your last comment, what does "live with him for eternity" mean? What purpose is there? Do you think you will just chill with Jehovah up in heaven for eternity?

He was showing the divine in all of us. That we could too follow his path and find our place in heaven beside him.

I would jump in front of a bus to push a child out of the way, and I'm certain many, many others would. I think this to the point where I believe most would.

Would I do the same knowing 'they' or 'I' would survive later? I am not following this question.

I believe there is more to look forward to after death than during life.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by koogz:
I would jump in front of a bus to push a child out of the way, and I'm certain many, many others would. I think this to the point where I believe most would.

You would sacrifice your own life to spare the life of another, how is this not just as great a sacrifice as Jesus, would you not sacrifice your own life to save all of mankind if you could? I just don't see any great sacrifice knowing what he knew.

I believe there is more to look forward to after death than during life. [/B]

I believe there is more to life, and I get more of it each day, I believe afterwards there is nothing, just like the billions of years before I was aware of myself.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
You would sacrifice your own life to spare the life of another, how is this not just as great a sacrifice as Jesus, would you not sacrifice your own life to save all of mankind if you could? I just don't see any great sacrifice knowing what he knew.



I believe there is more to life, and I get more of it each day, I believe afterwards there is nothing, just like the billions of years before I was aware of myself.

A lot has to do with the manner with which he died, not just the dying itself. I'd die for a person I loved, but to actually be tortured and crucified? I don't know... I'd like to think so, but I just don't know.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
A lot has to do with the manner with which he died, not just the dying itself. I'd die for a person I loved, but to actually be tortured and crucified? I don't know... I'd like to think so, but I just don't know.

I agree!

But what if you knew you were the Son of God, you KNEW it, you could talk with him and perform miracles and heal people and all that jazz, you KNEW you would be resurrected and you KNEW you had to fulfill this plan, you couldn't not do it, right?

I go back to my original statement, it seems half-assed. I would buy it more if he sacrificed his ENTIRE life and was dead. dead dead. That would be a sacrifice. So now he gets to chill in heaven, so what, that is what some peoples ENTIRE LIFE goal is.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
I agree!

But what if you knew you were the Son of God, you KNEW it, you could talk with him and perform miracles and heal people and all that jazz, you KNEW you would be resurrected and you KNEW you had to fulfill this plan, you couldn't not do it, right?

I go back to my original statement, it seems half-assed. I would buy it more if he sacrificed his ENTIRE life and was dead. dead dead. That would be a sacrifice. So now he gets to chill in heaven, so what, that is what some peoples ENTIRE LIFE goal is.

One point to interject. A great deal of Christian dogma is centered around him taking upon himself the sins of the entire world (past, present, future) and that he was reviled more with that than the loss of his life (or the manner of his death). Since the NT says he was without sin, and that he'd never known that shame, it would be a pretty bitter pill to swallow.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Since the NT says he was without sin, and that he'd never known that shame, it would be a pretty bitter pill to swallow.

Interesting, according to the bible, if he was without sin he wouldn't know shame, the concept perhaps, but true shame? Was it just as Adam and Eve weren't ashamed? So what if he didn't know any better?

So he took on the sins of the entire world, was he punished beyond death for that? Is he suffering for it now or for Eternity?

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I found this to be an interesting article regarding a famous atheist who, after decades of denying and publishing works aimed at disproving God, now feels that there is a higher power. Apparently, his switch in beliefs is based on scientific evidence.

As for the original post...

"Flew said he is now best described as a deist -- a person who believes God created the universe but is not actively involved in people's lives today."

wouldnt that make God totaly irellevant then?
it doesnt answer prayers,doesnt need to be worshiped,so why call it God?

I've always said. IF there is a god...a deist one is the most likely to be the one. But there's no point in worshipping or dedicating your whole life and belief system to such a god.

Furthermore if you read other interviews, you'll see that despite the comments you quote, he does not accept the miracles of Christianity, nor is he a theist. It is also clear to me that his comments about Islam arise basically from prejudice, especially since the monotheism of Islam seems theologically closer to his deism than does the Trinitarianism of Christianity. I'm of the opinion that he does not have a clear idea of Aristotle's First Cause which he claims now to believe in, and his arguments in support of it seem terribly weak.

This renews my commitment to never becoming a famous philosopher, because I don't want people mocking me every time I maybe change my mind, or trying to use me as ammunition for a position they can't argue themselves

Really, am I supposed to have some profound soul-searching moment when someone I've never heard of has had a change of heart on religion? Are theists going to return the favor every time on of their own deconverts? We see it every day.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Interesting, according to the bible, if he was without sin he wouldn't know shame, the concept perhaps, but true shame? Was it just as Adam and Eve weren't ashamed? So what if he didn't know any better?

So he took on the sins of the entire world, was he punished beyond death for that? Is he suffering for it now or for Eternity?

Yes, it was as the way Adam and Eve weren't ashamed. I would liken it more to him coming to the realization of all the nasty things that mankind ever did and realizing with perfect understanding the reasoning behind all those deeds... it would be similar to instantly commiting all those acts himself, losing all of one's innocence in a split second.

Was he punished beyond death? Well, he went into the depths of "Hell" and wrestled the keys to Death and the Grave from "the Adversary". That, I would imagine, would wipe the slate clean.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
By myth, I'm not saying it's fantasy. The term "myth" when used in this context means:

1. A traditional, typically ancient, story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society.

2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal.

As for backing up the assertion, you still haven't. See, that's the problem with anti-Theists, they'll bellow that the religious can't back up their assertions, but at the same time will trash the beliefs of the spiritual with their own assertions about Jesus (or Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus, etc.) but really have no evidence (or knowledge) regarding any of those ancient myths. It simply doesn't fit into their "world view" so they're dismissive and abusive. It doesn't take much in the way of mental acumen to figure out that these myths are crucial for mankind's development/advancement, and when they're ignored we suffer.

It's theorized (by myself and others) that there's a phenomena called an egregore. It's a group's cumulative belief in a specific spiritual thing or myth. Their belief gives a degree of power to that myth (or "construct"), and the myth in turn answers questions regarding mankind's nature, as well as empowering individuals, through faith or will, to do things that they wouldn't normally be capable. It's kind of like a symbiotic spiritual "partnership", if you will. Since it's specific to the group, your belief in it is largely irrelevant. Currently, the scientific egregore is quite powerful, and will only become moreso as we evolve, unless we happen upon an unforeseeable stumbling block in it's development.

"Fact" is a very odd thing. They can be specific to an individual or group, or in very rare instances, the entire system. I can't say that I really believe in "facts" though, at least not on an all encompassing scale. Facts, bleh, truth is much more beautiful.

No, I haven't specifically disproved it. I can't specifically disprove that ca$h was probed by aliens, either. By their very nature, negatives are difficult to prove - that's why we place the burden of proof on the person making a positive assertion of fact. If they have no proof, we rely on reason and deduction to rebut them. We can reasonably deduce from thousands of years of experience that (a) mammals don't "rise from the dead," (b) aliens don't give anal probes, and (c) humans have a remarkable tendency to make stuff up to suit certain emotional, social and/or aesthetic needs. From this we can reasonably deduce that the Resurrection is probably mythical in nature. You appear to agree with this, so again, I'm not sure what the argument is.

Yeah, I get the idea that for a given person or group, myth can be a form of reality and have emotional, social and aesthetic benefits - not exactly an original idea, whatever term you use for it. But if you're going to maintain that myths, superstitions and reported supernatural events aren't subject to scrutiny and must be accepted as fact "unless you were there," then we're wasting our time - that's just a parlor game, a solipsistic dead-end where nothing is ever true or false. It doesn't really interest me, and it probably doesn't interest the suffering children of Christian Scientists who are also asked to believe that one reality is as good as another, or the citizen who is required to "disprove" an unproven accusation.

[koogz]

Originally posted by mikellanes:
You would sacrifice your own life to spare the life of another, how is this not just as great a sacrifice as Jesus, would you not sacrifice your own life to save all of mankind if you could? I just don't see any great sacrifice knowing what he knew.



I believe there is more to life, and I get more of it each day, I believe afterwards there is nothing, just like the billions of years before I was aware of myself.

He made it so I had the ability to do so, and those that don't believe in him. If you have lost your soul, then you are incapabable, and I don't think there are that many who have lost their souls. Hitler maybe... I don't see him jumping in front of a bus to save anyone (In his time).

You believe there is more to life, yet you believe there is nothing after? That makes no sense. That is like looking at the Billions and Billions of Galaxies and saying, there is no life out there, it's only us...

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by zigzag:
No, I haven't specifically refuted it. I can't specifically refute that ca$h was probed by aliens, either. By their very nature, negatives are difficult to prove - that's why we place the burden of proof on the person making a positive assertion of fact. If they have no proof, we rely on reason and deduction to rebut them. We can reasonably deduce from thousands of years of experience that (a) mammals don't "rise from the dead," (b) aliens don't give anal probes, and (c) humans have a remarkable tendency to make stuff up to suit certain emotional, social and/or aesthetic needs. From this we can reasonably deduce that the Resurrection is probably mythical in nature. You appear to agree with this, so again, I'm not sure what the argument is.

Yeah, I get the idea that for a given person or group, myth can be a form of reality and can have emotional, social and aesthetic benefits - not exactly an original idea, whatever term you use for it. But if you're going to maintain that myths, superstitions and reported supernatural events aren't subject to scrutiny and must be accepted as fact "unless you were there," then we're wasting our time - that's just a parlor game, a solipsistic dead-end where nothing is true and nothing is false. It doesn't really interest me, and it probably doesn't interest the suffering children of Christian Scientists who are also asked to believe that one reality is as good as another, or the citizen who is required to "disprove" an unproven accusation.

Then I suppose I'm "wasting your time". I believe all of those myths are based in some type of truth, to one degree or another.

At any rate. You, it's quite obvious, have everything sorted out. The "suffering children of Christian Scientists"? Oh brother... little over the top there?

[Zimphire]

zigzag is doing the "The supernatural cannot be possible because of all these natural laws" trip.

Wasn't that debunked on page 2 or 3?

Someone hasn't been paying attention.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Then I suppose I'm "wasting your time". I believe all of those myths are based in some type of truth, to one degree or another.

At any rate. You, it's quite obvious, have everything sorted out. The "suffering children of Christian Scientists"? Oh brother... little over the top there?

Wasting each other's time in the sense that it's unresolvable - I don't accept the notion that one reality is as good as another, or that the concept of "fact" is so malleable as to include anything anyone asserts as "true." I certainly don't accept the notion that if Party A asserts as a matter of fact that "Jesus arose from the dead," it's up to Party B to prove that he didn't. That's what your original post suggested, and that's all I've been trying to address. If you don't accept my reasoning, so be it - there's not much else I can do about it.

Yes, the Christian Scientist example is an extreme one, but it does happen, and it illustrates the problem with your argument by following it to its logical conclusion. Believing that Jesus rose from the dead is pretty harmless in and of itself, but believing that one reality is as good as another isn't, at least not outside the confines of an online forum. I realize that that's all this is, but I figure if I'm going to hang out here, I might as well try to make rational arguments.

I don't believe I'm the one who thinks he has "everything sorted out." All I've meant to address is a single, narrow point about how we prove things: if A asserts a fact and asks us to accept it, it's primarily up to A to prove it; it's not primarily up to me to disprove it. That's not a particularly earthshaking idea.

You might think that I have no respect for religion per se, which is not the case - I'm well-acquainted with its potential emotional, social, and aesthetic benefits. I simply believe it's a good idea to understand its limitations. That's not a particularly earthshaking idea, either.

[roberto blanco]

it's funny how when it comes to financial matters,oohh let's say like paying taxes etc., (most) people who claim that truth and 'reality' are completely subjective, and everybody's 'facts' are just the same, all of a sudden become hardcore materialists...

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
it's funny how when it comes to financial matters,oohh let's say like paying taxes etc., (most) people who claim that truth and 'reality' are completely subjective, and everybody's 'facts' are just the same, all of a sudden become hardcore materialists...

I trust in God, but I don't trust the gov't with my taxes. God's perfect, the gov't ain't, and never has been.